Kabbalah And Mormonism

[wenglund]

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]

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-

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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/ensign/2008/12/living-by-the-light-of-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]

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]

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 March 7, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I may not be alone in thinking that the moon is symbolic of the Son or the Messiah. After all, in Gen. 1:14 we are told that the sun and moon are to be "...for signs, and for seasons...." Others on the net have suggested that "The Moon in the Talmudic tradition represents the Messiah. (here). According to betemunah.org:

Messiah is the head of the body called Israel. The moon symbolizes Israel because it waxes and wanes and reflects the glory of HaShem as the moon reflects the sun. Thus the moon symbolizes the Messiah as the head the rosh of Israel. This helps us to understand that when we do the kiddush Lavanah we say the following words:

דוד מלך ישראל, חי, חי וקיים

David, King of Israel lives, lives and endures!

When we celebrate the New Moon we prophecy. We prophecy the coming, the crowning, and the remembrance of Messiah. We prophecy about the restoration of the twelve tribes (one for each of the twelve new moons) that make up the body of Mashiach. We prophecy regarding the seven + three men of the sephirot that will crown the Mashiach. Thus we learn that the congregation (the 7 + 3 men) is responsible for bringing about this renewal. After all, Rosh Chodesh = Chief renewal, or the renewal of the chief, i.e. Mashiach. When the moon is eclipsed, Mashiach is eclipsed and Israel is eclipsed. Yet, even when we are eclipsed we are still visible and we still provide a sign for the Gentiles.

During Kiddush Lavanah about the Jewish nation, "…In the future they will be renewed like the moon…", during the geula (the redemption) that is about to happen. During the galut (the exile), the Jewish nation is tired and restless, but during the geula we will all be renewed and all of our faults will be corrected. And this will happen before it is even possible to have an eclipse!

The full illuminating moon in the middle of the month refers to Mashiach after He did his job of taking the Jews out of galut (exile) and building the Beit HaMikdash (the Tabernacle). The small moon that doesn't illuminate and is hardly recognizable at the beginning of the month refers to Mashiach at the beginning of his revelation when we are still in galut, but can recognize and identify the Melech (King) Mashiach. This in essence is the greatest revelation during the yemot HaMashiach (Days of The Messiah), the revelation of Mashiach himself in all of his glory.

Thus we must not wait until a lunar eclipse to praise HaShem for renewing the moon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

Not coincidentally (at least to me), the grouping of 4 may be seen in the design of Solomon's temple: Holy of Holies (celestial), Inner Court (terrestrial) , Outer Court (telestial) , and outside the temple wall (outer darkness).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here is yet another reference to the moon as symbolic of the Messiah:

God's first words in the Bible are:

• 
  " 'Let there be light!' And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good."
  

When we study the creation account closely we notice that it was not until the fourth day that God created the "two great lights", the sun and the moon. The Sages understood this too to be a Messianic allusion, and so the Midrash known as Pesikhta Rabbah, which was read from the 9th century on in connection with feast days, asks, "Whose is this light which falls upon the congregation of the Lord?" and answers, "It is the light of the Messiah". The Yalqut Shimoni, comprising catenae of Talmudic and Midrashic passages drawn up in the 12th and 13th centuries, adds this thought to the exposition of the verse: "This is the light of the Messiah, as is written in Psalm 36:10,'In your light, we see light' ". (see here)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2012 by wenglund

[volgadon]

One of the songs I learned as a child was this one,

,

though the melody we sang it to is more like this

The words are David melech Israel khai ve-kayyam (David, king of Israel, is alive and well). They are taken from an incident related in the Babylonian Talmud (t. Rosh ha-Shanah 25a) regarding the blessing of the new moon. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi sends R. Hiyya to bless the new moon and report back if all goes well by sending a signal containing the phrase "David, king of Israel, is alive and well."

The link between King David and the moon did not originate with R. Judah. It is found in Ps. 89:37-38. "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in sky."

In early Judaism David was considered by many to still be alive, and that he would be the messiah. Others considered him more than a messiah, but a divine figure, if not a secondary god.

Edited March 7, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Thanks- good idea.

How conversant is he with Modern Hebrew?

[mfbukowski]

How conversant is he with Modern Hebrew?

Not sure.

[wenglund]

One of the songs I learned as a child was this one, , though the melody we sang it to is more like this. The words are David melech Israel khai ve-kayyam (David, king of Israel, is alive and well). They are taken from an incident related in the Babylonian Talmud (t. Rosh ha-Shanah 25a) regarding the blessing of the new moon. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi sends R. Hiyya to bless the new moon and report back if all goes well by sending a signal containing the phrase "David, king of Israel, is alive and well." The link between King David and the moon did not originate with R. Judah. It is found in Ps. 89:37-38. "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in sky." In early Judaism David was considered by many to still be alive, and that he would be the messiah. Others considered him more than a messiah, but a divine figure, if not a secondary god.

I am glad you shared this. In my brief study, the notion of the "new moon" seems to have n o little significance in Judaism. From what I could tell, it was the basis for Jewish Sabbaths, festivals, and seasons, and not coincidentally, it signified rejuvenation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2012 by wenglund

[SamIam]

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).

Just to add a thought on this subject...

D & C 19:6-12

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

This very small sample of God explaining in detail an expansion of the definition of a word, I believe to be a pattern for practically everything we know in the Gospel. In the case of “eternal” it is perceived by the masses to be simply forever in the sense of a range of time. We are, after all, time-based thinkers as a result of mortality and tend to evaluate perceived time element statements against a paradigm of relativity to a linear perspective.

However, when God explains the definition of eternal it morphs from a time based definition to a status based definition with absolutely no restriction of a time element at all. It embraces linear eternity but it is not constrained by it in the least. It is not “when” we are in the timing of events that matters, it is “who” you are that matters and who you are defines what you are.

Basically the Lord tells them if you continue to think of eternity in terms of the passage of time you will never understand eternity.

Eternal by God’s definition falls into the category of I am that I am or truth is things as they were, are AND will be. It is a comprehensive statement of wholeness that embraces all the actions, characteritics and qualities of God. Apply this line of reasoning to the concept of firstborn and an entire venue of consideration opens. As we change our perspective from linear to circular - definitions of necessity will expand and if they do not one wonders at the rate of advancement of our spiritual growth.

This is just a little piece of a massive change of understanding but notice the reason the Lord says he has not given this information prior to this moment to this group of spiritually mature individuals. Basically in verse 7 it states that I have not clarified this before because when people overlay a sense of never ending time line to a principle of damnation it works on them and moves them in a way that is ultimately significantly important to God’s successful implementation of his work and glory. However, after a time of spirtual development he can dispense with the lower levels of motivation and take individuals to more precise understandings which for the right individuals becomes the next aspect of significantly motivating understanding.

[volgadon]

I am glad you shared this. In my brief study, the notion of the "new moon" seems to have n o little significance in Judaism. From what I could tell, it was the basis for Jewish Sabbaths, festivals, and seasons, and not coincidentally, it signified rejuvenation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sacred time, the holy days, was reckoned by the moon, so of course there are many teachings and stories about it.

There is another, non-messianic interpretation. Days are reckoned according to the smaller moon. Why? Just as the reckoning of the Gentiles follows the larger sun, which rules the day, so do they enjoy this world. The smaller Israel will enjoy the night, that is, the world to come.

[wenglund]

Sacred time, the holy days, was reckoned by the moon, so of course there are many teachings and stories about it.

There is another, non-messianic interpretation. Days are reckoned according to the smaller moon. Why? Just as the reckoning of the Gentiles follows the larger sun, which rules the day, so do they enjoy this world. The smaller Israel will enjoy the night, that is, the world to come.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. The moon is symbolic of more than the Messiah. In various faith traditions, including Judaism, the moon is at times referred to in the feminine gender as "she", and this because of the moon's ties to the cycles of life and fertility. One of the websites I visited even spoke of the sun as symbolic of man, and the moon as symbolic of woman, and the light of the sun being symbolic of the seed of man being given to the woman and engendering the cycle of life (birth through death) as represented in the different phases of the moon.

Not to belabor this point too much further, but speaking of the moon as a sign of the Messiah, there are several prophesies about the latter days in which the sun will hide itself and the moon turned to blood (Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20;Revelation 6:12;Doctrine and Covenants 29:14; etc.). I see this prophecy of the moon turning to blood as perhaps indicative of Christ "treading the winepress" and his "vesture dipped in blood," as mentioned in Revelation 19. Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SamIam]

I apologize in advance but this is going to be a long multipost response. It was necessary from my perpective to completely illustrate the significance and influence that I have realized from trying to understand the manner of learning of the Jews.

For the sake of ease of reference I would like to roll up most of the references that I will use as relative to the idea of the learning of the Jews. We can’t really approach Kabbalah as it only begins to draw its full purpose after one has conquered the principles behind the learning of the Jews. Otherwise individuals not grasping the standards by which to interpret do not recognize the boundaries their interpretation should fall within. Like any discipline if we don’t really learn the fundamentals of Jewish scripture interpretation it remains separate as a element of knowledge but not an intrinsic component of our thought process. Our failure to embrace it and use it leaves us evaluating it at a distance and of course as has been observed thus far, we tend to dismiss it as not as effective as the methodologies with which we as individuals have been indoctrinated. It’s like trying to learn the martial arts by watching a couple of Bruce Lee movies. I realize that we can’t give the necessary time to learn everyone’s discipline for this or that but the scriptures shine a spot light on the manner of learning of the Jews and its worth has been emphasized in thoughts such as this by Bruce R. McConkie:

“One of the reasons many of the Nephites did not understand the words of Isaiah was that they did not know “concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.” (2 Ne. 25:1.) And so it is with all Christendom, plus many Latter-day Saints.”

These kinds of references set this particular discipline, amongst others, as uniquely beneficial if the objective is better understanding of scripture. I can assure you that thus far in my experience, no one looks at scriptures with the fine tooth comb that devoted religious Jews do.

Still, we as LDS potentially can bring the other elements of the equation and truthfully the most important elements in understanding scripture, of the gift of the Holy Ghost and the spirit of prophecy. Fact is learning after the manner of the Jews takes place for many spiritually

oriented people simply by the acts of the spirit teaching them to think more mystically to augment the intellectual standard, though they may not acknowledge or realize they have acquired talents of this nature.

Since our discussion revolves around learning of the Jews, the one tangent I will use is the methodology for combining multiple references to come to a cogent interpretation. This will also illustrate the technique for how one would answer volgadon’s observation of:

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.

To be continued to post 2

[SamIam]

On these principles I believe they very much related but to follow is the explanation of the reasoning that I would use to relate them. To start I will reference the fourth of the seven rules of Hillel:

4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building up a "family" from two or more texts)

A principle is established by relating two texts together: The principle can then be applied to other passages. i.e:

In Hebrews 1:5-14, Paul sites the following to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than angels:

Psalms 2:7 = Hebrews 1:5

2 Samuel 7:14 = Hebrews 1:5

Deuteronomy 32:43/Psalms 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Hebrews 1:6

Psalms 104:4 = Hebrews 1:7

Psalms 45:6-7 = Hebrews 1:8-9

Psalms 102:25-27 = Hebrews 1:10-12

Psalms 110:1 = Hebrews 1:13

Binyan ab mikathub echad (#3) and Binyab ab mishene kethubim(#4) are especially useful in identifying biblical principles and applying them to real life situations. In this way Scripture is recontextualized so that it remains relevant for all generations. (http://www.netzarim.info/index.php/7_Rules_of_Hillel)

This example actually paints a very clear process of linking multiple verses to come to a conclusion that is consistent with scripture but may appear unique in that it combines so many seemingly disparate thoughts from other scriptures. When Paul was Saul he was trained by Gamaliel, who was the grandson of Hillel; both were some of the most respected rabbinical leaders of their time. We can see that his understanding of scriptural exegeses enabled him to be bold and sure of interpretation. Paul is not inclined to plead, “this is just how I see things,” or “this is what it means to me” as he knows the rules and the spirit of the process. Knowing the rules provides the boundaries of his thoughts and then the spirit confirms and he expounds brilliantly.

Now these are the concepts that I have gathered over the years that speak to me concerning the methodology one might use to define a relationship between deity and celestial orbs using the Hillel rule number 4 above. This will be very detailed, perhaps unnecessarily so, as I am trying to focus on the very thoughts that pull one down the path.

To be continued post 3

[SamIam]

The Scriptural Sources

D & C 88:45

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Moses 7:48-49

48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

From these two sources I am only going to draw upon the gender pronoun in use to describe the various orbs. The earth and moon are listed as feminine in gender and the sun is listed as masculine in gender. Still not conclusive though – only a start…

The next verse was already mentioned and I quote:

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.

I won’t repeat the verses here but simply reinforce that for the most part mfbukowski and I read the verses in D & C 76 the same. D & C 88 has some similar material but we are all familiar and for space constraints I will not put it in here but it tends to interpret similarly. Still there is a caveat and a possible hole in our reasoning which I will address at the end where we note the weaknesses in the development of these thoughts.

To be continued on post 4

[SamIam]

Sources from Quotes

Following are some statements attributed to Joseph Smith which I think further tighten up the reasoning:

General Law asked why the sun was called by a masculine name and the moon by a feminine one. I replied that the root of masculine is stronger, and of feminine weaker. The sun is a governing planet to certain planets, while the moon borrows her light from the sun, and is less

or weaker. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 1932-1951], 5: 210 - 211.)

Again this seems to point more to a masculine designation for the sun and a feminine designation for the moon. However, by inference he is introducing the possibility of additional tangents of reasoning which may grant us more surety in our conclusions. These tangents are relative to Priesthood authority and the temple covenants between a husband and wife. The priesthood authority is the reference to governing which is decidedly a priesthood function. I also find it interesting that he references the sun as a planet and uses the same term for the non-light producing orbs which look to the sun to provide the energy that sustains the non-lit planets. Orbs then of the same order, but differing genders and roles; the masculine orb responsible to provide and preside for the feminine orb which can be perceived according to the Moses 7 Verse above as a mother that nurtures and provides for the rearing of her children. The Joseph Smith quote equates moons with a feminine gender and so by inference the moon and the earth may be the feminine members of the order or orbs.

This next quote moves us from the realm of orbs but begins to tie into how we might compare Christ in his role with the roles we have begun to define for the celestial orbs in discussion.

He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him & there is given him

glory & dominion.--Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. (Words of Joseph Smith, Willard Richards Pocket Companion (probably copied in part from

notes of John Taylor), for July 1839))

This quote attributed to Joseph Smith draws some distinctions between Adams role as the presiding priesthood holder of the earth but what is interesting is that it establishes a larger role for Christ than just a role that is confined to this planet that we reside. Adam holds the keys for an earth but Christ holds the keys for a universe.

Now we won’t extrapolate anything else from this quote at this point but will tie it to the next one to expand on the nature of the role of Christ as a holder of keys of the universe:

Well, the keys to all this knowledge were first committed to the Prophet Joseph, as a part of the gospel, for the world's benefit, for all of which he was derided. He was the first in this age to teach "substantialism", the eternity of matter, that no part or particle of the great universe

could become annihilated or destroyed; that light and life and spirit were one; that all light and heat are the "Glory of God", which is his power, that fills the "immensity of space", and is the life of all things, and permeates with latent life, and heat, every particle of which all worlds

are composed; that light or spirit, and matter, are the two first great primary principles of the universe, or of Being; that they are self-existent, co-existent, indestructible, and eternal, and from these two elements both our spirits and our bodies were formulated, and he gave us to

understand that there were twelve kingdoms, or planets, revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry and that now was His time to again visit the earth. He taught that all systems of worlds were in revolution, the

lesser around the greater. He taught that all the animal kingdoms would be resurrected, and made us understand that they would remain in the dominion of those who, with creative power, reach out for dominion, through the power of eternal lives. (Benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to

George F. Gibbs, 1903)

To be continued on post 5

[SamIam]

This quote does several things for us. It equates that a kingdom or planet can be one and the same. Not that it is exclusively so since God’s kingdom is dynamic and embraces millions of earths like this (Moses 7) and will continually expand. This quote also draws a corollary to the Doctrine and Covenants 88 parable of kingdoms starting in verse 51 and by inference we can define the Lord of the field as Jesus Christ and I feel safe that at one level of understanding the servant can be Adam or any reigning High Priest (priest and king) that draws his keys from Adam who ultimately draws them from Christ. It centralizes a concept of He who holds the keys of the universe as one around whom others that hold keys of a world might revolve. The image I added to my profile a couple of days ago that shows under my user name is a byproduct of reasoning upon this venue. It was the only way I could get a picture to show…back to Adam.

We received the priesthood first in the premortal existence and then again as mortals. Adam held the keys and used the priesthood when he participated in the creation of the earth. After his baptism he received the priesthood again, and he now stands as the presiding High Priest

over all the earth. (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrine of the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 1982, 32)

It also creates a concept of lesser systems of worlds revolving around greater systems of worlds. This may give some visual and conceptual insight into D & C 88: 41:

D & C 88:41

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

All of these concepts are laid out here not only to define specifics of how we can intertwine the meanings but also to create a sense of flow and influence as to how the concept should feel and taste. This theme of centrality is a theme of the light giving sun being revolved around by light reflecting planets. It is a theme of Priesthood holders revolved around (if you will) by those whose desire shall be to their husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Moses 4:22). It is a type of priesthood filling roles of governance and administration. This theme places presidency as a central role around which the objects presided over revolve.

In all of this, the theme attaches a sense of the roles and consistently defines some of them as masculine and some of them as feminine It is a theme of how all things are types and shadows of other things. It has a feel to it that conveys a sense of the order of things. And I believe you can sense a quality of flavor or taste that captures concepts of similarity and how they blend. There is a quality of texture, continuity, and pattern that goes up and down consistently through multiple layers of meaning. This is part of the all things circumscribed into one great whole concept. This is the one of the most difficult aspects for those unyieldingly steeped in conventional methods of education to grasp. There is an effort to target and diminish feeling or tasting a message as a requisite to knowing something. To think after the manner of the Jews requires it as well as does being taught by the spirit. It is upon this principle that most educated intellectuals never grasp and see the worth of multiple principles of Jewish scriptural interpretation and so dismiss them or only treat them as one more thing where the sum total of the experience is defined within knowing the terminologies. In time it is this sense of flow that becomes one of the more significant aspects of feeling how things integrate to maintain the sense of continuity of verses and quotes. This is in part what the benefit is of using Jewish methodologies such as PRDS to develop insight into scripture and higher levels of understanding and driving oneself to dig deeper even after one thinks they have understanding to find there is an entire level beyond and then beyond that.

To be continued on post 7