Kabbalah And Mormonism

[HiJolly]

Any suggestions on the best way to get a translation of this? Fascinating stuff!

Kerry Shirts could do it in his spare time...

HiJolly

[DubaDNura]

This is a wonderful thread. Volgadon hit the nail on the head about my absence from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown (during which time I become a pumpkin). Yesterday, I was very busy. When I get a free moment, I'll respond to some of these excellent posts.

[wenglund]

They are only heretics due to their external influences, which come from excesses due to the shattering of the vessels. (Ok, time out. Shattering of the vessels refers to a stage in the creation of the world that is, so to speak, well after the “contraction.” The simple – and therefore inadequate – explanation is that G-d began creation by pouring an awesome effluence of light into vessels that were too weak to contain the light, causing them to shatter. The broken pieces fell into the world, and became the world’s excesses – that is, aspects of the world that seem particularly meaningless or even evil due to the greatness of G-d’s concealment. Once these broken vessels are repaired (“Tikkun”), the world will be whole. The deeper explanation reveals that the “shattering” really refers to the lack of perception and insight on our part. If we can repair our own shattered perception (the vessels through which we perceive the light of G-d in the world), we will see how the world already is whole, and how it always was whole.

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2012 by wenglund

[HiJolly]

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

ah... no... not in my view. I see the four worlds as:

Atziluth

Beri'ah

Yetzirah

Assiah

From wikipedia: "As particular sephirot dominate in each realm, so the primordial fifth World, Adam Kadmon, is often excluded for its transcendence, and the four subsequent Worlds are usually referred to. Their names are read out from Isaiah 43:7, "Every one that is called by My name (Atzilus "Emanation/Close"), and for My glory I have created (Beriah "Creation"), I have formed (Yetzirah "Formation"), even I have made (Asiyah "Action"). Below Asiyah, the lowest spiritual World, is Asiyah-Gashmi ("Physical Asiyah"), our Physical Universe, which enclothes its last two sephirot emanations (Yesod and Malchut).^[3] Collectively, the Four Worlds are also referred to as ABiYA, after their initial letters"

Then again, there are a wide variety of flavors of Kabbalistic teachings. So, to each his own.

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As for Adam Kadmon, well, it helps us understand how Adam is the father of our spirits, amen.

HiJolly

[DubaDNura]

Some quick comments:

1. Translations of Rebbe Nachman: There are translations of his work, Likutei Mohara''n that also contain fairly good comments and explanations. I have not looked at them in depth, though, so I can't vouch for them - other than to say that people who I trust have told me they are good.

2. Translations of other Chassidic books. If you know where to look online, it is amazing what you can find. Kehot is a publishing house for the Chabad chassidic sect (chabad.org has been quoted by others a few times above), and they've put together some very good translations of Chassidic discourses. A translation of Chabad's fundamental treatise, Likutei Amarim - Tanya, has been around for awhile. The English almost readable. With the help of the book "Lessons in Tanya" (a 5 volume set), the book becomes quite readable.

3. I don't know anything about Wittgenstein. So I'll have to look him up.

Edited March 5, 2012 by DubaDNura

[mfbukowski]

3. I don't know anything about Wittgenstein. So I'll have to look him up.

Fascinating guy. I actually gave up philosophy in an academic sense because I was convinced there were no more problems to be "solved". Oh yes, there are the final "proofs" that he is right- but all of deconstruction and most of contemp. philosophy in my view is working out the details of his understanding of language.

He was arguably "religious" but not in an organized spiritual sense. Yet it is clear that he was ultimately a mystic- perhaps not in a religious sense.

[DubaDNura]

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

ah... no... not in my view. I see the four worlds as:

Atziluth

Beri'ah

Yetzirah

Assiah

From wikipedia: "As particular sephirot dominate in each realm, so the primordial fifth World, Adam Kadmon, is often excluded for its transcendence, and the four subsequent Worlds are usually referred to. Their names are read out from Isaiah 43:7, "Every one that is called by My name (Atzilus "Emanation/Close"), and for My glory I have created (Beriah "Creation"), I have formed (Yetzirah "Formation"), even I have made (Asiyah "Action"). Below Asiyah, the lowest spiritual World, is Asiyah-Gashmi ("Physical Asiyah"), our Physical Universe, which enclothes its last two sephirot emanations (Yesod and Malchut).^[3] Collectively, the Four Worlds are also referred to as ABiYA, after their initial letters"

Then again, there are a wide variety of flavors of Kabbalistic teachings. So, to each his own.

Wade and Jolly both point to groupings of 4 and identify them as the four worlds. Both are correct. Jolly is right that if two Kabbalists happen to be discussing the latest baseball game involving [insert local team here] and [insert other team's name here], and somehow the topic of the 4 worlds came up, the assumption is that Atzilut, Briyah, Yetzirah, and Asiya (shortened to ABY''A) are being discussed. But Adam Kadmon, Akudim, Nekudim, Atzilut (or, ABY''A) are often called the "General Atzilus, the General Briyah, the General Yetzirah, and the General Asiyah." I looked at the Chabad.org article that Wade was quoting, and I think a fair reading of the article made the last world Briya, instead of Atzilut. However, I think that the article was not worded clearly. When counting the general worlds, the last world is Atziulut - which includes the other three worlds, or ABY''A.

By the way, that grouping of 4 is also seen in the 4 letters of the Tetragrammaton (sp? I rarely have to write that it English), Yud, Hei, Vov, Hei.

Now at the top of Atzilut (so to speak), is the sefirah Keter. Keter is considered to be partially within the world of Atzilut.That aspect of Keter is called Ratzon or desire (and I frequently translate Keter simply as desire for that reason, even though it literally means crown). It is also considered to be outside of the world of Atzilut. That aspect is called Taanug, or pleasure. (This is the aspect that relates to music, by the way). Taanug is compared to the tip of the Yud (it has a tip when its written in a Torah scroll). Together, with Taanug, the 4 worlds are actually 5 - which are parallel to the 5 levels of the soul: Yechidah, Chaya, Neshama, Ruach, Nefesh.

These 5 levels are also compared to the 5 partzufim. A Partzuf literally means forms of visages (but, for the sake of all of the Mormons that enjoy drawing parallels, I've also seen it rendered "Personages"). It refers to a full system of 10 sefirot within a world. So the partzuf of Aba (father) is parallel to the sefirah of Chochma (wisdom); the partzuf of Ima (mother) is parallel to the sefirah of Binah (intelligence); the partzuf of Zeir Anpin (Little faces), which is sometimes called simply Zachar (male, or boy), is parallel to the 6 emotional attributes of Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferes, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod. (I'll offer more explanations about those 6 later), and the partzuf of Nukva (female, or girl) is parellel to the Sefirah of Malchut (majesty - but related to the faculty of speech). On top of them all is the partzuf of Arich Anpin (long faces), which is parallel to ratzon/keter or desire. (Here's a joke: What did Aba say to Arich Anpin? .......why the long face? Ba dum bum).

What do all of these things mean?

Well, thankfully, you have the entire Zohar by Rabbi Shimon and his students - as redacted by Rabbi Moshe de Leon, the entire book of Eitz Chaim, all of Sefer Yetzirah by Abraham our Patriarch, Pardes Rimonim by Rabbi Cordovero, and basically every other book on Kabbalah that's ever been written. So thanks for throwing me all of the softballs.

The short answer is: you're both right.

The long answer is that they have to do with the development of maturity both specifically (that is, personally), and globally. The first thing a person must perfect is his action. This requires rules to be put in place to prevent bad acts - and does not concern itself with the cause of those bad acts. The second thing a person must perfect is his emotions, the Zeir Anpin of a person. This includes emotional associations with art, music, etc. The practical way this is accomplished is that the student goes to a Yeshiva or school, and must separate himself from the world during that time so that he can perfect his associations to a point where they no longer are unhealthy or worldly. This doesn't mean shutting out the world entirely. But it does mean shutting out much of the world for an extremely limited period of time. The next thing a person must fix is his logic, and his rational sense. Even if he has the right idea about what to accomplish, he still needs to be sure that his method of accomplishing it is effective and does not suffer from the law of unintended consequences. Finally, he has to perfect his wisdom - which really means his vision - so that his image of what he truly wants is correct. This way, he best approximates his Keter - his true desire. Then, he must reintegrate this desire, and this vision, into his life on every level - so that he does not have to live with blinders or oppressive rules in order to function properly.

This integration process is then top down, from Keter/Arich to Aba/Chochma, Ima/Binah, into the emotions, Zeir Anpin (called Z''A), and Nukvah/Malchut (Z''A and Malchut are further shortened to Zu''N (short for Zachar u'Nekeivah, boy and girl).

That personal process mirrors the creation of the world, and the steps the world must go through before the revelation of the Messiah.

--

From a top to bottom perspective, G-d's very desire to create the world (Keter) actually accomplishes the creation of the world ("Everything he desires, he does" seamlessly). The statement, I want to be a King ("Ana Emloch") caused an establishment of the desire in an articuable manner. (So says the Zohar: Through the first desire of the King, an engraving was made in the supernal purity." Engraving means Malchut - so you now have everything from Keter to Malchut, highest to lowest, in its primordial state). The world is that articulation. Between the "Ana Emloch" and how we got to our present situation, one day away from knowing whether Rick Santorum can get enough delegates in Super Tuesday to stop Mitt Romney from waltzing into the Republican convention, there is room to fill several large libraries - with books on Physics, Astronomy, Philosophy, Law, and even (actually, mostly) Kabbalah.

The difference between the general worlds and the specific worlds is that the general worlds refer to the process leading up to creation, while the world specific worlds ABY''A are the actual created world (so to speak). But the created world not just mirrors, but actually reveals, the process that led to the creation.

For example: The steps from wanting something to getting it. 1. Start with a statement of principle: I want something yummy (good principles! I've used this parable before, on this forum, by the way). 2. Create an image of that desire. 3. Suggest practical ways to accomplish #2. (Now, at this point, there may be an ebb and flow between 2 and 3. You might say "Well, I want a Gigantic Root Beer Float and Howard Johnson, only for Logic (Binah) to send back the message: HoJo no longer operates in Salt Lake City [i'm using Salt Lake City as an example because I bet statistically, more of you are familiar with Salt Lake City than New York - I have no idea if HoJo was ever open in Salt Lake City]. So Binah might suggest: just go to Starbucks and get a Red Zinger tea (no caffeine). Then #2, Chochma, says "that's logical and practical because there is a Starbucks down the street from me, but I don't really want a Red Zinger tea. Finally, you settle on Ice Cream). 4. Ascertain how to accomplish this. (This may involve reaching into your pocket. If you find money there, you're halfway to your goal. If you don't find money there, either locate a parent or friend who can help, or get a job. This may involve several years of college, including incurring significant education related debts. Asi es la vida.) 5. Get, and eat, the ice cream. Now you've come full circle, with 1-5 corresponding to the partzufim of Arich Anpin to Nukvah.

This mirrors G-d's process of creating the world. 0. The essence of G-d, which is higher than any image, logic, or reason. 1. The desire be king expressed as "Ana Emloch," being the "First will of the King (ie, to be king)" Zohar, Bereishit), and the image of G-d's desire, from top to bottom - completely perfect, and no blemishes. (Adam Kadmon). 2. The idea that the accomplishment of that vision is accomplished through the creation of a world, containing 10 sefirot (Akudim). 3. The form that world takes, through the sefirot. (Nekudim) This is the first time that any articulation of this world in which we live is made: through the limitation of the world to 10 sefirot.

(Now what happens here, however, is that between us and G-d's desire stands a perception gap known as "Shvirat haKelim" or the Shattering of the Vessels. The vessels are the 7 lower sefirot of Nekudim (also sometimes referred to as Tohu). In our lives, we can understand Tohu as a disconnect between the essential desire and its realization. Its when a perverse result issues due to the law of unintended consequences. For ex. 1. I want to make money so that I can relax. 2. I'll get a job. 3. My job keeps me at work for over 60 hours per week. 4. I better work harder so I can get a promotion.)

Finally, 4. G-d creates the world. ABY''A.

The translation between general and specific is not entirely seamless in large part because before the "creation" there is no time. So it becomes hard to talk about something happening before something else. Shvirat haKelim doesn't really happen before the creation of the world (in fact, it is talked about in the Torah as occurring during the creation... the world was "Tohu and Bohu.") What it means is that within creation, these 4 realities stand in a hierarchy: There's G-d's ultimate purpose, and then there's us. We are told what to do in the Torah so as not to totally mess up. But ultimately, the perfection of our purpose must come through a maturity that infuses all of the partzufim (ie, our partzufim, individually), rather than through strict adherence to the rules. (And sometimes, maturity means greater adherence to the rules. Avoiding a drunk driving charge seems like an onerous acceptance of "rules" for a teenager, until, G-d forbid, a friend of his is killed by a drunk driver or while driving under the influence himself. After that maturing realization, the government could abolish all DUI laws and it would not impact a mature individual's behavior in the least. It isn't just the law - its reality).

I hope to be able to clarify all of this as time goes on. My experience is that the more you read about it, the clearer it becomes. So there's value in trying to figure out this terminology, even if it doesn't quite come together all that quickly.

--

I still owe some explanations of what is Kabbalah (I'm explaining that by showing, but I'll try to come up with something systematic that can be quoted in lieu of these strange explanations), and Hassidism. I don't have the foggiest idea what Rosecrucianism is. So all of that was a learning experience for me.

Edited March 5, 2012 by DubaDNura

[DubaDNura]

On the subject of music, and since some folks have already cited chabad.org: if you want to know what Taanug (pleasure) feels like, try this out: Kremenchuger Berelach.

Also, don't think that I've missed the (coincidental?) parallel between Briyah, Yetzirah, Asiayah and Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestrial. Note that the lowest world of the 4 worlds is our physical world, not hell/gehinnom, which is actually a higher world. (Give me some time, and I'll explain that. But not right now). In one sense, the 3 worlds from Briyah down, (called BY''A, oftentimes), really are the created world. Atzilus is often considered to be higher than creation (just like Adam Kadmon is really higher than any notion of worlds, that really begins, as it were, in Akudim).

Edited March 5, 2012 by DubaDNura

[HiJolly]

Thanks for your comments, DubaDNura.

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380679/jewish/KABBALAH-CABALA-QABALAH.htm

Christians, mystics, Hermetics, occultists, magickians and Western Mystery acolytes all have their own interpretations and teachings on Kabbalah, so be ready for a lot of differing views on various things.

The Berg's Kabbalah Centre (who taught Madonna) are often looked down on by more purist Kabbalists. It would probably help if they weren't selling red-thread bracelets and such. But that's only scratching the surface.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

Fascinating guy. I actually gave up philosophy in an academic sense because I was convinced there were no more problems to be "solved". Oh yes, there are the final "proofs" that he is right- but all of deconstruction and most of contemp. philosophy in my view is working out the details of his understanding of language.

He was arguably "religious" but not in an organized spiritual sense. Yet it is clear that he was ultimately a mystic- perhaps not in a religious sense.

Just thought I'd add this- if anyone is interested in actually reading some Wittgenstein, I have two things to keep in mind.

1- I would not recommend the Tractatus if you are looking for looking for the point of view being discussed in this thread- after writing the Tractatus with Russell, Wittgenstein repudiated his position and completely changed his philosophical point of view in his later writings. Of course a bit of his earlier views come through in his later writings, but for the most part, they are quite different. I would recommend Philosophical Investigations and the Blue and Brown Books if you are interested in exploring the views which are represented here.

2- Beginners often have a problem reading later Wittgenstein because they are looking for a philosophical treatise on a subject, the way ordinary philosophers write. Wittgenstein doesn't write that way. Think of Wittgenstein as a "clear thinking therapist". He uses examples to teach the method to clear thinking. What he talks about is how we use language, and in so doing, we build our own conclusions about the nature of language.

It is more of a Socratic method and I suspect that method of teaching probably parallels Rabbinic practices, though I really don't know if that is correct or not. In a sense he is speaking in parables, but his subject is the structure and limits of linguistic usage itself.

So a beginner will be looking for "answers" in his writings- they want a declarative sentence saying "I think language does such and such" and they don't find it, and so they do not understand what is being said.

You just have to read him and let him lead you to the conclusion he wants you to have. For that reason, his books are highly persuasive and actually can be life-changing, because, like Mormonism, once you "get" what it is all about, you just kind of surrender to the common sense of it all.

I am sure the critics will get a kick out of that last sentence, but the believers will understand instantly what I mean.

[volgadon]

Some quick comments:

1. Translations of Rebbe Nachman: There are translations of his work, Likutei Mohara''n that also contain fairly good comments and explanations. I have not looked at them in depth, though, so I can't vouch for them - other than to say that people who I trust have told me they are good.

Haven't read this translation yet. but might as well post the link.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33439&st=&pgnum=2

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth- I just posted this on another thread so I thought I'd post in here.

It's Leonard Susskind, the originator of string theory commenting on the fact that language is inadequate to describe ultimate reality.

I think we have a theme developing here

http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

[volgadon]

For what it's worth- I just posted this on another thread so I thought I'd post in here.

It's Leonard Susskind, the originator of string theory commenting on the fact that language is inadequate to describe ultimate reality.

I think we have a theme developing here

http://www.peterbyrn...d0711Byrn3p.pdf

Kevin Christiansen must have gotten to him. =)

[SamIam]

I seldom participate but at the urging of a friend who knows of my interest in things Jewish and of things Kabbalah he noted this thread and suggested it to me. When I encounter LDS with some knowledge of Kabbalah and or some experience with the manner of prophecy amongst the Jews, upon which Kabbalah depends, we tend to talk in terms of definitions and what it is and what it is not but I have not met individuals that actually try to use it as a manner of interpreting scripture. I find that the, or at least a, foundational issue is that we think after western training but are not particularly adept at thinking mystically precisely because of the western thinking paradigm. So it seems to me we simply become morphed western thinkers using Kabbalah terminologies without embracing the entire paradigm shift that is to think after the manner of the Jews. Thus, at least for my observations most that I have encountered do not make very good kabbalah style thinkers - just western thinkers with a Kabballah vocabulary. I'm speaking to mostly about LDS intellectuals as individuals and not this audience as a whole.

That said, what I am wondering is can you give some insight as to how you made the assumptions of God the father being the Sun, while the moon represents Christ. I see your reasoning prior to that point and it is okay for the time being as I have little to provide boundaries for where my reasoning is permitted to travel. LDS theology only barely comes close to an insinuation of Ein Sof which seems better defined in Kabbalah than any comparable LDS theology and I believe that to be where you are pointing in the opening of your analysis. You may direct me to something that changes that opinion but to date I have only noted loosely compatible ideas. So, for me, without a balancing standard that I have identified in LDS theology it leaves much more room for all of us to discuss within the constraints of loosely confined speculations. And without that standard we can all explain it in reasonable terms and it is just as acceptable one person's conclusion versus another.

However, within both theologies there is a more consistent pattern for assignment of feminine and masculine traits and how they relate to each other. In LDS theology we have Joseph Smith quotes and Book of Moses references that provide gender assignment to the celestial orbs and it seems different than the choices you have selected. Also in Kabbalah the dualism of male and female as incomplete parts to an ultimate whole, such as in the 10 sefirot seems to favor more to the distinctions of a male and female balance even in the assignment of gender to the celestial orbs. I would be happy to provide more specificity but thought I would just open with trying to understand your perspective more clearly and then see where this goes from there.

Thank you

[mfbukowski]

Kerry Shirts could do it in his spare time...

HiJolly

Thanks- good idea.

[mfbukowski]

Kevin Christiansen must have gotten to him. =)

[mfbukowski]

I seldom participate but at the urging of a friend who knows of my interest in things Jewish and of things Kabbalah he noted this thread and suggested it to me. When I encounter LDS with some knowledge of Kabbalah and or some experience with the manner of prophecy amongst the Jews, upon which Kabbalah depends, we tend to talk in terms of definitions and what it is and what it is not but I have not met individuals that actually try to use it as a manner of interpreting scripture. I find that the, or at least a, foundational issue is that we think after western training but are not particularly adept at thinking mystically precisely because of the western thinking paradigm. So it seems to me we simply become morphed western thinkers using Kabbalah terminologies without embracing the entire paradigm shift that is to think after the manner of the Jews. Thus, at least for my observations most that I have encountered do not make very good kabbalah style thinkers - just western thinkers with a Kabballah vocabulary. I'm speaking to mostly about LDS intellectuals as individuals and not this audience as a whole.

That said, what I am wondering is can you give some insight as to how you made the assumptions of God the father being the Sun, while the moon represents Christ. I see your reasoning prior to that point and it is okay for the time being as I have little to provide boundaries for where my reasoning is permitted to travel. LDS theology only barely comes close to an insinuation of Ein Sof which seems better defined in Kabbalah than any comparable LDS theology and I believe that to be where you are pointing in the opening of your analysis. You may direct me to something that changes that opinion but to date I have only noted loosely compatible ideas. So, for me, without a balancing standard that I have identified in LDS theology it leaves much more room for all of us to discuss within the constraints of loosely confined speculations. And without that standard we can all explain it in reasonable terms and it is just as acceptable one person's conclusion versus another.

However, within both theologies there is a more consistent pattern for assignment of feminine and masculine traits and how they relate to each other. In LDS theology we have Joseph Smith quotes and Book of Moses references that provide gender assignment to the celestial orbs and it seems different than the choices you have selected. Also in Kabbalah the dualism of male and female as incomplete parts to an ultimate whole, such as in the 10 sefirot seems to favor more to the distinctions of a male and female balance even in the assignment of gender to the celestial orbs. I would be happy to provide more specificity but thought I would just open with trying to understand your perspective more clearly and then see where this goes from there.

Thank you

I have mentioned this before, but I think it is obviously virtually impossible for non-Hebrew speakers to really have anything more than a vague glimpse of an understanding of what Kabbalah means to someone who is 1- a Hebrew speaker, and even less of an understanding of its implications to 2- a Hebrew speaking Jew.

There are so many symbolic references to gematria for example that one wonders if a basic implicit assumption of the entire enterprise is that God only "really" reveals himself to Hebrew speaking Jews. And of course those of us who are not in that category would take exception to that view.

I think Calmoriah, another poster here, has said it well and I have included her comments in my signature below. For me ALL linguistic representations of God are metaphors and not to be taken too seriously. As Calmoriah's quote says, it is all art.

I do not worry about who God "really is", since that is unknowable through language and reason, but only to each individual as he reveals himself in spiritual experience. It is my opinion that that is precisely what is meant by the LDS definition of "testimony"- and we specifically teach that if one does not have a testimony and is not led by the Holy Spirit, one should not teach others.

I guess that I am saying that those of us who are not Jewish cannot possibly think "after the manner of the Jews" nor can we really ever totally understand Kabbalah. The reason I find interest in it is in seeking out similarities that I can find between its cultural understanding and others is discovering what is universal in mankind.

But that said, in LDS symbology, I have never heard of the Son having any symbolic reference in the Moon. The Celestial includes the Father Son and Holy Ghost as well as any others who achieve exaltation. The glory of the Moon is identified with the Terrestrial Kingdom, the stars with the Telestial Kingdom.

[DubaDNura]

I looked at some things, and talked over my post above with a friend of mine, because it didn't sit well with me. Here's why: the general worlds (as opposed to the specific worlds, ABY''A) are usually identified like this:

Adam Kadmon --> General Briyah

Atik Yomin/Arich Anpin (Keter) --> General Yetzirah

Zeir Anpin (but, really, the body of Atzilut other than Malchut --> General Asiyah.

The implication is that the Or Eni Sof (the Light of the Infinite One... ie, G-d) is Atzilut. But that is left as an implication, and never stated outright. G-d is not a world. He is essentially higher than all of the worlds. The "created" worlds begin at Briyah. I'll therefore edit a couple of things I wrote above with this addendum thusly (I've also added some explanations on Tikun, the "rectification of the shattered vessels"):

1. The essence of G-d, which is higher than any image, logic, or reason. (Not associated with a world - but implicitly parallel to Atzilut, which is higher than the created worlds) 2. The desire be king expressed as "Ana Emloch," being the "First will of the King (ie, to be king)" Zohar, Bereishit), and the image of G-d's desire, from top to bottom - completely perfect, and no blemishes. (Adam Kadmon). The idea that the accomplishment of that vision is accomplished through the creation of a world, containing 10 sefirot, unified completely in their desire to produce a world is called Akudim. 3. The form that world takes, through the sefirot. (Atik Yomin/Arich Anpin, aka Nekudim) This is the first time that any articulation of this world in which we live is made: through the limitation of the world to 10 sefirot.

(Now what happens here, however, is that between us and G-d's desire stands a perception gap known as "Shvirat haKelim" or the Shattering of the Vessels. The vessels are the 7 lower sefirot of Nekudim (also sometimes referred to as Tohu). In our lives, we can understand Tohu as a disconnect between the essential desire and its realization. Its when a perverse result issues due to the law of unintended consequences. For ex. 1. I want to make money so that I can relax. 2. I'll get a job. 3. My job keeps me at work for over 60 hours per week. 4. I better work harder so I can get a promotion.)

Finally, 4. G-d creates the world, with "large vessels" and "small lights." This is opposite Tohu/Nekudim in which there are "small vessels, and large lights," causing the vessels to "shatter" due to the pressure from the "lights." (Remember that all of this is metaphorical). In the world, the supernal desire is hidden - ostensibly for our protection. If we had ultimate revelations from G-d, we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves, and we wouldn't know what to do with the revelations. Imagine teaching your daughter to ride a bike. At some point, you need to take off the training wheels - knowing that injury is likely to follow. At the same time, you don't take off the training wheels too early. That would constitute poor decision making. Instead, you give your child the right amount of babying, without showing them the true desire (that they ride a bike without training wheels) until they are ready. The world is our controlled environment - a padded room for us to practice being G-dly without serious risk (G-d has a sense of humor I don't quite follow sometimes). This level is called the General Asiyah, even though its connected with "body" of Atzilus (as opposed to its head), because the theme of creation is Tikun, rectification, which begins at this level. This is also sometimes called Brudim.

Believe it or not, the terms Akudim, Nekudim and Brudim come from the description of Jacob's sheep, when he was living with Laban. They were: ringed, spotted, and speckled. Akudim, Nekudim, and Brudim. Now if that isn't mystical, I don't know what is.

[Bill Hamblin]

In DC 19:10 God says his name is "Endless," a title not found in the Bible (cf. Moses 1:3, 7:35). Ein Sof means literally "no end," or Endless.

[SamIam]

All in all I would have to say we are in agreement with but a couple of adjustments. This statement that you make "I guess that I am saying that those of us who are not Jewish cannot possibly think "after the manner of the Jews" nor can we really ever totally understand Kabbalah," bears a bit of discussion. I will say that at this time, I think more after the manner of the Jews than I did 12 years ago when I began trying to take Bruce R. McConkie at his word that it was a mandate if one was truly going to understand scripture. I believe his recommendation implies that he thought learning to think after the manner of the Jews was of some benefit to him as well. I think that the fact that Joseph Smith took such great efforts to learn Hebrew and encouraged other participants in early church history to join with him pleads the case that in his mind it was possible to learn to reason after the manner of the Jews. His revelations certainly have profound Jewish and Kabbalistic overtones that are typically missed for lack of this training being common in the church. In essence, I believe that if you follow a similar path - learn Hebrew, study ancient documents - contemplate the delicate intricacies of the temple...I believe doing these things will enable one to grow more and more capable of thinking after the manner of the Jews. Additionally, I think that the Jews lack part of the equation that would enable them to be more accurate in their understandings but for their inability to access the temple experience. In other words, I am not so sure that we are not at equal disadvantage each holding a key that the other requires to expand our understandings properly. If you think about it, the scriptural significance of Ephraim and Judah being united is deeply interwoven in this concept. So while they have knowledge that we need, we have knowledge that they need in order to truly grasp Kabballah and LDS theology in their fullness.

This all considered, I might amend this statement "one wonders if a basic implicit assumption of the entire enterprise is that God only "really" reveals himself to Hebrew speaking Jews." to read - one wonders if a basic implicit assumption of the entire enterprise is that God only "really" reveals himself to endowed members of LDS church who learn to think after the manner of the Jews by following the path that Joseph Smith championed so well. The true key being that without the gift of the Holy Ghost operating in our life we really do not know what we understand and if it conforms to God’s understanding. As the gift of the Holy Ghost resides squarely within the restored church, it of all of the various sources of knowledge reigns preeminent in revealing both proper theology and proper Kabballah. In fact, I do not see Kabballah or LDS theology of much worth in the absence of the Holy Ghost to guide the path of learning…. to quote your post one more time “of course those of us who are not in that category would take exception to that view. ”

That said, I must acknowledge that frequently I have thought that those of Jewish origin manifested natural gifts of intellect that exceed the typical non-Jewish person. Still I firmly believe it takes both sources to Kabbalah / Jewish understanding and LDS Theology to see more true.

As a sample thought along these lines, I have long felt that the concept of Shekinah is not understood independently properly by either party as well as it is understood together. However, by blending certain statements of Jewish thought and combining that with certain examples in the Bible, Book of Mormon and one from the Book of Moses with a couple of statements from church leadership certain aspects of the Shekinah take on more specifics in understanding.

As well, I am in agreement with your observations concerning Christ and the Father and celestial orb assignments. I am hoping to see the source material of how he came to that conclusion so I can see if it is something I have pondered over or not.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Nemesis
edit out bad code as per request.

[DubaDNura]

In DC 19:10 God says his name is "Endless," a title not found in the Bible (cf. Moses 1:3, 7:35). Ein Sof means literally "no end," or Endless.

What do you attribute that name to, in Doctrines and Covenants, and in the Pearl of Great Price? (Not to drag up issues that are currently being dealt with in your discussions with Rob Bowman).

[DubaDNura]

On the topic of learning to think "in the manner of the Jews" (when did we become so popular?), Kabbalah can range from being very practical to being very esoteric. My attitude is not to shy away from the esoteric, even with those who may not fully understand it. The way I learned was to dive in (with the help of some very good teachers), rather than taking the beginners' track. I have the same attitude in discussing it (as I've done here). The more exposure, the more you'll understand as time goes on. I have no illusions about being able to teach anyone A through Z in a handful of posts. But I have not shied away from explaining concepts that others would label "not fit for popular consumption", or from using jargon. Its hard to have a conversation about these issues without jargon. If you look at most statute books, they begin the statute with definitions. These definitions can be longer than the actual statute, which may be as simple as:

It shall be illegal for employers to discriminate against employees in the context of their employment.

In order to change the import of the statute, you tweak the definitions, rather than the single sentence establishing the rule. What is an "employer"? What constitutes "discrimination"? What is the "context of employment"? These terms all constitute jargon. But the jargon makes it easy to state the entirety of the rule in a single sentence. So long as everyone agrees on the definitions of the words/jargon in the sentence, the full and potentially complex meaning of the sentence is clear despite the pithy nature of the sentence. When the first Rebbe of Chabad first started taking students, his teachings were very short, and very deep. As he became more widely known, his message appealed to more and more people with no background in Kabbalah. He therefore had to expand on his teachings, and speak at great length. His deepest teachings are also his shortest teachings. With Kabbalah, while the ultimate goal (recognition of the fact that the world simply mirrors G-d's unity) appears simple, it requires layers of understanding. My hope is that as people learn more and more, they will be able to look back on things I've posted here and understand them better - and for these posts to continue to add to their understanding. I don't want to teach anyone how to add 1 + 1. (The answer is 2. The development stops here). I want to teach them to add X + Y. (Teach a man to fish...)

I have the same attitude in "real life." I often speak to crowds with diverse knowledge. If I've done my job well, everyone gains from my talk: the people with a deeper knowledge of the subject matter nonetheless find the talk educational; the folks who are beginners nonetheless can understand what I'm saying - even if they'd understand it better, with more nuance, if they were not beginners. I'd be curious to hear an educator's perspective on this. Hey, I think Professor Hamblin might use the internet. Perhaps he'll happen upon this post and opine! (Unless there are too many papers to grade. I'll understand that).

Edited March 6, 2012 by DubaDNura

[wenglund]

So it seems to me we simply become morphed western thinkers using Kabbalah terminologies without embracing the entire paradigm shift that is to think after the manner of the Jews.

Personally, I see this as a good thing. To me, there are advantages to both western and eastern thought, and I prefer to avail myself of both rather than just the advantages of the one at the exclusion of the other.

To be honest, while I seek for further light and knowledge within Kabbalah, as a paradigm I view it as quite inferior to my own, which is why I wouldn't abandon my paradigm for it, but Instead, I choose to use Kabbalah, or rather the symbolic way of looking at things within Kabbalah, as one of several means for enhancing my paradigm. By this I mean I use the revelations of the restored gospel to form the basis of my faith, and then look to symbolism within the scriptures to reinforce and expand upon that faith.

More to the point, I look to Kabbalah and other eastern systems of thought as a means of tying the present with the past. I believe that the mysteries of the kingdom that were once hidden by way of symbolism and prophesying among the Jews, has now been revealed in its plainness in these latter days and the fullness of times. So, I don't need Kabbalah to gain a foundational understanding of God and the realm of spirits. In fact, I believe that my revealed understanding of God is better and perhaps more correct and more workable than Kabbalah. Rather, I look to Kabbalah and other eastern paradigms as a means of finding some of todays plainness in the symbolism of the past, realizing that there may have been some corruption over time.

I can respect, though, if you and others view Kabbalah differently than me, and I hope that even still we can learn and benefit from each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 6, 2012 by wenglund

[DubaDNura]

Wade, as a great philosopher once said: "Naw dawg, its all good." (I hope I'm using that right).

Edited March 6, 2012 by DubaDNura

[wenglund]

That said, what I am wondering is can you give some insight as to how you made the assumptions of God the father being the Sun, while the moon represents Christ.

Given what I said in my previous post, the way I made the assumption is to take what I have plainly learned about the Father and Son from revelation, and looked to see if that understanding may have been symbolically represented in one of the most important aspects of the scriptures--i.e. the creation narrative. I used the plain speech of modern revelation to find the mysteries of God hidden in the symbolism of the distant past--mysteries that I believe have been hidden even from Kabbalists, who while very fond of anthropomorphic imagery in relation to God, "repeatedly warn and stress the need to divorce their notions from any corporality, dualism, plurality, or spatial and temporal connotations." (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot#The_Man-metaphor_in_Kabbalah]Wikipedia: Kabbalah)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-