164 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

volgadon, on 05 March 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Kevin Christiansen must have gotten to him. =)

[mfbukowski]

SamIam, on 05 March 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

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 by Nemesis, 06 March 2012 - 11:34 AM.
edit out bad code as per request.

[DubaDNura]

Bill Hamblin, on 06 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

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 by DubaDNura, 06 March 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[wenglund]

SamIam, on 05 March 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

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 by wenglund, 06 March 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[DubaDNura]

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

Edited by DubaDNura, 06 March 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[wenglund]

SamIam, on 05 March 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

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[/url])

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

DubaDNura, on 06 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

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

You got it, dude. You bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SamIam]

Good post - thank you.    

On this statement, "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."  I thought I would clarify just in case there is some misunderstanding based on the nature of my post and others where we are talking about celestial bodies and God and Christ.  For myself I am not positing that God or Christ is a particular orb but that the imagery of certain celestial bodies is consistent with priesthood functions and temple covenants.  I will also now posit that there is a unity of function of the masculine roles and the feminine roles.  As a point in evidence if we consider Moses 7 the Earth cries out and calls its inhabitants its children.  I have come to understand that all of the mothers of eternity ideologically line up in their functions as such in a way that can be constantly attributed to maternal roles and that paternal roles are exhibited in the assignments of certain masculine roles to organized creations of a masculine order. The Mother earth sees us as genuinely her children just as much so as your mother (hopefully) sees you as her genuine offspring.  The Earth in Moses 7 is functioning in the capacity of a feminine nurturing role of which the mothers of our flesh are dependent upon for the materials which become these bodies.  They are team members fulfilling maternal roles as I believe is duplicated throughout creation.

Just for fun, I'll go ahead and complete the thought that all of creation is not created solely for man's place of habitation while he is on his way to becoming what ere he becomes but that man simply is the presiding portion of a collective creation in which each level and intelligent entity is connected in a symbiotic fashion. Each level of intelligent creation is fulfilling their role according to laws and everything below the presiding level is dependent on the presiding levels successful attainment of eternal life.  In other words they (other intelligent creations) succeed in eternal procreative existence only in as much as man attains the capacity to function in a creative capacity.  They are vested in our success, even as we are vested in theirs. We only succeed if all of creation does it's part, which it will always do, while suns and universes and moons and plants and amoebas will only continue in eternal creation within the realms where a successful presiding entity (a God) has initiated the organization of spirit children to occupy the presiding role to reign over the other creations in the eternal process. There are God orbs that create after their image as well as Gods in whose image we are. Our role can become that of presiding over all of these organizations according to the laws of light and truth that govern such. This is a principle of the unity of eternity which can be difficult for man to grasp because we tend to think of all things with man as the center and fail to realize how interdependent we are on each level of organized creation - no one succeeding without the successful fulfillment of each level and role.

[SamIam]

wenglund, on 06 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

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[/url])
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I was looking for a bit more specificity…this verse here I interpret this way and this quote here says this to me… kind of material.  As this reads to me now you have built the revelation bridge that spans a gulf of space below it to get you to the other side of what appears a very large chasm.  What I was hoping for was the line upon line approach that illustrated a couple of the lines or a precept or two that moved you to that particular reasoning.
The reason I am so bold as to inquire as such is that I consider that an imperative contingency to thinking after the manner of the Jews and of LDS theology and that is the nature of this thread to explore those two perspectives.  There are standards of understanding that must be met even before the revelation takes place…there is a requisite of knowledge upon which a revealed expansion is predicated.  Even Joseph’s first vision is predicated upon the knowledge that God gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not – then the question – who’s right - and then the vision.

I am more than happy to develop the quotes and verses that I use to get to my point of revealed understanding but to see if yours will augment my own I first need a bit more help for clarity of a couple of specific lines and or precepts that pointed you to your perspective.  I understand if that time is not available to you and won’t prod you further if you are not interested in engaging in a detailed analysis of how we each have used the strictures of LDS theology and the strictures of thinking after the manner of the Jews to reach points of revealed understanding.

[mfbukowski]

I guess what I am saying is that I am totally fascinated by Kabbalah, but there are only so many hours in the day, and I have found that my explorations of our own endowment is even more fascinating to me.  My concern is that by spending time on traditions which I have little hope of fully penetrating, even should I decide to study Hebrew, etc I am ignoring what is right in front of me and more directly available. (at least to me).  I think we LDS have not come close to fully exploring what can be found in the endowment.  As an ordinance worker, there is so much "temple lore" available right in our own temples about how the covenants relate to the various symbolic gestures etc which we perform, that I would rather be on the "cutting edge of discovery" in a sense, discussing this with others in the temple.   I see some of the gestures as physically representing and alluding to known graphic symbols, not unlike a kind of sacred "semiphore code" or physical gematria as it were.

But the parallels are fascinating.   I think in fact that Joseph could not possibly have had sufficient understanding of Kabbalah or how Kabbalah influenced Masonry, to come up with what he did.  I think there are many layers of meaning in every aspect of the endowment which usually escape understanding- at least as many layers as I have seen so far in my very cursory study of Kabbalah.

So yes I have an interest in Kabbalah, and am grateful for the opportunity to learn more, if for no other reason than to have a more profound appreciation for my own tradition.

At least that's the way I see it now.

[wenglund]

mfbukowski, on 06 March 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

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.

Perhaps it is my own symbolism.

However, if you consider from whence the moon receives its light, and this in relation to the subordination of the Son to the Father; and if you consider that the moon is the great body that rules the night (the night being symbolic of the earth, where day is symbolic of heaven), and this in relation to Jesus being the God of the earth (or in other words, the Father rules over and is visible in the heavens, while the Son rules over and is visible on earth; and if you consider that in terms of the resurrection, "These are they whose bodies are ^acelestial, whose ^bglory is that of the ^csun, even the glory of God, the ^dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical. And again, we saw the ^aterrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the ^bFirstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the ^cmoon differs from the sun in the firmament....These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the ^apresence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father....And the terrestrial through the ^aministration of the celestial" (D&C 76:71-77, 87--emphasis mine); then you may see how, in some respects, the moon may be symbolic of the Son, or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

DubaDNura, on 06 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

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).

Mormons would say it is a revelation of one of the many true name-titles of God.  It DC is is contextualized in a discussion of what is endless torment of hell.

[volgadon]

DubaDNura, on 06 March 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

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).

Another pertinent question is whether or not these texts are describing the same kind of thing, despite the identical title. I unfortunately neglected it, but Samiam and I had a discussion on this a while ago.

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 06 March 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Perhaps it is my own symbolism.

However, if you consider from whence the moon receives its light, and this in relation to the subordination of the Son to the Father; and if you consider that the moon is the great body that rules the night (the night being symbolic of the earth, where day is symbolic of heaven), and this in relation to Jesus being the God of the earth (or in other words, the Father rules over and is visible in the heavens, while the Son rules over and is visible on earth; and if you consider that in terms of the resurrection, "These are they whose bodies are ^acelestial, whose ^bglory is that of the ^csun, even the glory of God, the ^dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical. And again, we saw the ^aterrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the ^bFirstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the ^cmoon differs from the sun in the firmament....These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the ^apresence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father....And the terrestrial through the ^aministration of the celestial" (D&C 76:71-77, 87--emphasis mine); then you may see how, in some respects, the moon may be symbolic of the Son, or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well frankly I have no problem with what you are saying.   I see the interpretation of symbology as something which is directed by personal revelation and also as part of our individual personal vocabularies we use (create) in forming our personal understandings of God.

But I don't see that interpretation in what you posted- notice it says the glory of the terrestrial DIFFERS from the glory of the church of the Firstborn (Christ) (ie: celestial glory) as the glory of the sun (celestial) differs from the moon (terrestrial).   The Terrestrial is reflected glory- the Church of the Firstborn receive the "fullness" and the glory of the moon does NOT receive of the fullness.

And of course we also have the teachings about the Light of Christ which is repeatedly and voluminously identified with the sun.

Quote

Modern scripture provides enlightenment regarding the Light of Christ:
“He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
“Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. …
“And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
“Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
“The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things” (D&C 88:6–7, 11–13).

http://www.lds.org/e...christ?lang=eng
I think that is the more usual LDS understanding, but again, the task for each of us I think is to organize our own spiritual universes from "matter unorganized" just as Our Father has taught us in this, HIS universe!

This to me is the strongest metaphor of the Mormon anthropomorphic God who is also as we are, but infinitely above us.   We create our little universes and hope we do so well enough to eventually "grow up" and be like our Father.

I just know that my matter unorganized tends to be more unorganized than most!  

So if you want your moon to reflect and symbolize Christ's glory- who am I to say you are wrong?

[Bill Hamblin]

volgadon, on 06 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Another pertinent question is whether or not these texts are describing the same kind of thing, despite the identical title. I unfortunately neglected it, but Samiam and I had a discussion on this a while ago.

I basically agree.  I think its coincidence.

[wenglund]

mfbukowski, on 06 March 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Well frankly I have no problem with what you are saying. I see the interpretation of symbology as something which is directed by personal revelation and also as part of our individual personal vocabularies we use (create) in forming our personal understandings of God. But I don't see that interpretation in what you posted- notice it says the glory of the terrestrial DIFFERS from the glory of the church of the Firstborn (Christ) (ie: celestial glory) as the glory of the sun (celestial) differs from the moon (terrestrial). The Terrestrial is reflected glory- the Church of the Firstborn receive the "fullness" and the glory of the moon does NOT receive of the fullness. And of course we also have the teachings about the Light of Christ which is repeatedly and voluminously identified with the sun. http://www.lds.org/e...christ?lang=eng I think that is the more usual LDS understanding, but again, the task for each of us I think is to organize our own spiritual universes from "matter unorganized" just as Our Father has taught us in this, HIS universe! This to me is the strongest metaphor of the Mormon anthropomorphic God who is also as we are, but infinitely above us. We create our little universes and hope we do so well enough to eventually "grow up" and be like our Father. I just know that my matter unorganized tends to be more unorganized than most! So if you want your moon to reflect and symbolize Christ's glory- who am I to say you are wrong?

I can appreciate what you are saying.

For me, I am not looking for a single or best symbol of the Son. I believe he is symbolized by many things in life and in the scriptures, including: morning star, star, sceptre, manna, the staff of life, sacrificial lamb, Isaac, scape goat, Melchezidec, branch, patriarchal order, temples, stone/corner stone, foundation, light, shepherds, fishermen,  prophets, kings, princes, high priests, servants, right hand, bridegroom, fountains, husbandmen, hens, emblems of the sacrament, non-sacramental wine, etc., etc.

And, I agree with you that some symbols are better than others in teaching us about various aspects of the Father and Son. The human form is great for teaching us about the anthropomorphic nature of the Father, though it may not be as good as the sun in teaching us how the Father has a body and yet is everywhere present. It may not be as good as the moon in relation to the sun in teaching us how the Father can be both present and not present, invisible and visible, on earth.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 07 March 2012 - 01:38 PM.