34 replies to this topic

[wenglund]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

There are some Hasidic sources detailing this practice which I'd have posted time permitting.

That would be appreciated...as long as they are in English.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

wenglund, on 25 June 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

That would be appreciated...as long as they are in English.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I could post them in Yiddish so neither of us would understand. Can't say fairer than that.

Edited by volgadon, 25 June 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[wenglund]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

I could post them in Yiddish so neither of us would understand. Can't say fairer than that.

Maybe the power of the words will be manifest nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

wenglund, on 25 June 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Maybe the power of the words will be manifest nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That would be some feat. To the pure, and all that.

[ANACO]

volgadon, on 02 May 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Hasidism preserved a remarkable tradition of the creative, divine powers of speech. The power of speech, of course, is connected to letter esotericism.
In Judaism there was an early and sustained fascination with letters, their power and meaning. The roots of letter esotericism could be said to go back as far as the book of Genesis itself. God commands, things obey. This process was accomplished by the medium of speech. In Pirkei Avot 5:1, one of the earliest rabbinic texts, we read that God created the world by ten utterances. As speech consists of sounds represented by letters, it is logical to conclude that letters themselves have power and intrinsic meaning. Letters have individual sounds and in different combinations yield different words with different meanings. Ayin-Nun-Gimel is oneg- delight. Change the sequence and you get nega- blight or disease. God didn't say "kartina maslom" and there was light. He said "wa-yehi or." For the ancient Jewish exegetes the word choice wasn't arbitrary or randomn.
As an example of this, the Tabernacle in the wilderness was believed to be modelled after the cosmos. Bezalel the architect and craftsman who constructed the tabernacle, knew,

That is to say, Bezalel knew which letters were used in which combinations in order to bring about the desired results.
In 3rd Enoch the theme of mystical creation by letters is continued.

The five openings of the mouth is part of the classification system the Sefer Yetzirah uses for the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each "opening" is a position of the tongue for producing speech.
In a discourse by the Hasidic master R. Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl (1730-1798), the letter heh, which changed Abram's name to Abraham, symbolised the five openings. Abraham was given mastery over the openings and the powers they regulated. According to the Chernobyler, in each letter of the alphabet is hidden some of the divine light which is what brings life and blessings into the world.

The power of procreation is linked to the power of creation, both being dependant upon the divine potency inherent in pure, divine speech. I did not include R. Menahem Nahum's discussion of the rung of sacred speech. Rungs of course are what allow one to climb a ladder.
Martin Buber, in his Ten Rungs, adapted a Hasidic interpretation of Jacob's ladder, emphasising the universal, ethical aspect.

The more traditional formulation is theurgic- by performing the commandments, man not only draws divine power into this world, but increases the power of Heaven above. In Joseph's dream, after all, the angels both descended and ascended upon the ladder.

For the Chernobyler, this is achieved primarily by means of pure, holy speech.
R. Meir ha-Levi of Apta, a later Hasid, provides another description of this process.

Until Abraham perfected by loving service- acts of worship motivated by love- his ascent to the rung of sacred speech, he lacked the power to bring forth offspring. Having attained that rung, Abraham shared the divine power to create and to produce life. Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl's homily stops short of pursuing the implications to their logical, but radical conclusion. Man is capable of attaining a level of holiness in which not only is God's power delegated to him, he governs the worlds also. This form of theosis is not post-mortal, nor is it eschatological, but available in the here-and-now through elevating the profane and mundane to holiness.

[1]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 55a.

[2]Rachel Elior, "Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom," p. 108.

[3]Arthur Green, "Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl: Upright Practices, The Light of the Eyes (Classics of Western Spirituality)," pg. 161-163.

[4]Martin Buber, "Ten Rungs: Collected Hasidic Sayings," p. 34.

[5]R. Aharon Shemuel ha-Cohen, translated in Moshe Idel, "Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic," p. 143.

[6]Ibid, p. 204.

http://calba-savua.b...-of-speech.html

I'm impressed Volgadon. Seriously and sincerely.
Is this the manner of teaching that Nephi was referring to as recorded in the 25th chapter of the second book of Nephi? And his brother in the fourth chapter of Jacob?
I've always been curious what Nephi was referring to when he wrote "concerning the manner of the Jews."

With kind regards.

[volgadon]

ANACO, on 25 June 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

I'm impressed Volgadon. Seriously and sincerely.
Is this the manner of teaching that Nephi was referring to as recorded in the 25th chapter of the second book of Nephi? And his brother in the fourth chapter of Jacob?
I've always been curious what Nephi was referring to when he wrote "concerning the manner of the Jews."

With kind regards.

This is an example of an 18th-19th c. belief with earlier roots, expressing itself through the language of certain texts appearing long after the Bible. I wouldn't go so far as to identify it with what Nephi was talking about. What Nephi meant is something I've wanted to look into further.

[SamIam]

ANACO, on 25 June 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

I'm impressed Volgadon. Seriously and sincerely.
Is this the manner of teaching that Nephi was referring to as recorded in the 25th chapter of the second book of Nephi? And his brother in the fourth chapter of Jacob?
I've always been curious what Nephi was referring to when he wrote "concerning the manner of the Jews."

With kind regards.

As someone who has genuinely spent years, roughly 13 to date, working with the Nephi statement of manner of the Jews, I thought I would add two bits.  There are concepts such as PRDS, and the 7 rules of Hillel, the Thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael, and the 32 rules of Eliezer B. Jose Ha-Ge-Lili, that one can read and research out.  However, in certain respects these are only approximations and really simply give a starting point.  Works that give insight into the process of rabbinical studies and technique are also helpful. Still what I have noted is the big obstacle is the Academic priority for researching and educating and gleaning all of the knowledge on a subject only leaves one with a sense of comprehension of the subject matter without the required understanding and wisdom.  Again, according to Jewish thought, these are a triad and all are required be woven together before one owns the information.  My point is the manner of the Jews as a documented list of activities that fulfill the requirement of defining what it is does not exist in a pure form.  From the scholarly point of view that alone shuts them off and they exclaim, there is no “manner of the Jews.”  However, I boldly state they are wrong.

That said, and this applies to this current conversation about the power of language, there is only so much that can be conveyed by the use of language and the manner of the Jews is hugely dependent upon a spiritual effort of conditioning the mind to embrace much more than can be recorded in a set of instructions.  I never saw an ounce of improvement in my studies the first 3-4 years of effort in trying to use these principles.  However, slowly I noticed that the way my mind looked at spiritual things began to change.  I continued to apply the principles as further understanding led to better assimilation.  One of the key differences I have noticed is I no longer read anything with that sense of professional academic distance; I am running it against a spiritual backdrop of evaluation that makes everything very personal.  Scriptures, principles of evaluation, and tests of continuity bring everything under a spiritual gospel based mentality.

In the piece I wrote a few posts back on this thread (very long, I know...), you may noticed that I take the esoteric texture of the Zohar and it becomes a very personal treatise on how principles integrate into something that is tangible and internal and remarkably fulfilling as it wraps around and intertwines with even the simplest concepts in scripture.  Thus a concept such as touching the hem of Christ’s garment becomes a discussion of the power of desire as it is built on the scaffolding of letters which is further shorn up by specific words of power is able to play out to the healing of a women.  Thus the word command as it relates to Christ usage in 3^rd Nephi is dissected to comprehend on what principals can the sense of command be evaluated that retains the sense of expectation while all of the time preserving the integrity of Christ’s mandate of a voluntary act of agency that fulfills the edict of a kingdom flowing unto him without compulsory means.  In other words, “command” as we traditionally view it, from mortal paradigms, is in violation of the very principles that define the use of the priesthood.  So how can we find our way through such subtle obstacles? The manner of the Jews and how they evaluate is a clue to getting there.

As you read Rabbinical material at first it sometimes appears that they are attaching the most improbable interpretations of a subtle use of a certain word, however, for some reason not quite clear, working with the effort of how they analyze and devour even one word of a scripture will completely expand the capacity of your mind to see the magnificence of the seemingly most mundane details of a story to where you observe and feel aspects of spiritual potential previously not realized.  So if you maintain an academics distance and simply seek knowing from the sterile position of never getting your hands dirty in application then read the list I started my post with and move along not really grasping the manner of the Jews. However, if you desire to know the word of God in a fashion that is so self sustaining you will never see the need for another commentary, or other persons opinion, you will never garner that false sense of knowing simply because you can compose a few lines of text incorporating pieces of jargon in a “knowing” way, if this appeals to you, then the manner of the Jews is for you.  It is not the only way per se but it has certainly been a valuable piece for me.

Edited by SamIam, 26 June 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[ANACO]

Very interesting. Thank you.

Reading 2 Nephi 25, Nephi (or he appears to me) is pointing out two aspects, of the "manner of the Jews."
He stated he didn't teach his people "the manner of the Jews" because:

1. 'their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations'

I don't believe he's making a blanket condemnation - just of the Jews that he personally knew of - for he wrote of his knowledge of the regions "round about" Jerusalem.  Thus this first aspect was the reason for his Father being commanded to flee Jerusalem, for it was to be destroyed due to wickedness. This parallels with the destruction of the Jaredite & Nephite nations, etc., etc.

Secondly, Nephi refers to the manner [of prophesying among] the Jews.

2. 'I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.'

Then Nephi follows by saying he did not teach his children after the manner of the Jews - of course Nephi wouldn't teach about darkness or abominations - so here he seems to be referring to their method of teaching/learning/prophesying - which again, Nephi did not teach to his children/people.

Thus two aspects of the manner of the Jews. Neither desirable to Nephi, it appears.

Then Nephi refers to the prophecies of Isaiah as being difficult to understand by his people (because they were not taught - by him - after the manner of the Jews) yet whoever has the spirit of prophecy can understand Isaiah. And then of his own prophecies being 'plain' or having plainess "in the which I know that no man can err" as a contrast to "the manner of the Jews."

Later, Jacob (4:16) referred to the Jews as having looked beyond the mark, causing them to stumble/fall, etc
Nephi referred to that mark as being Jesus Christ (Ch 25). So apparently the manner of the Jews wasn't desirable, because due to it, it was difficult to arrive at what the law (of Moses) pointed to. Thus when Christ came, as we know, He was rejected by the Jews at Jerusalem. Nephi foresaw this in vision (v.13) and didn't want his people to reject the Messiah when He appeared. Thus he didn't teach "the manner of the Jews" to his people.

Maybe this could explain why the Nephites, who lived the Law of Moses, generally seemed more faithful and believing, versus the Jews in Jerusalem who also kept the Law of Moses, when the Savior appeared to both groups. This may be why Nephi did not perpetuate Jewish tradition, i.e., their manner of teaching and prophesying, among his people.

Now I could be completely wrong. And I'm certainly not condemning anyone learning of, nor am I condemning, the manner of the Jews. It's just an observation on that 25th chapter.

The manner of the Jews, apparently, was not among the Nephites nor in the Book of Mormon. This is why I posed my earlier question to Volgadon.

Anyway, thanks for your patience.

[SamIam]

ANACO, on 26 June 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Later, Jacob (4:16) referred to the Jews as having looked beyond the mark, causing them to stumble/fall, etc
Nephi referred to that mark as being Jesus Christ (Ch 25). So apparently the manner of the Jews wasn't desirable, because due to it, it was difficult to arrive at what the law (of Moses) pointed to. Thus when Christ came, as we know, He was rejected by the Jews at Jerusalem. Nephi foresaw this in vision (v.13) and didn't want his people to reject the Messiah when He appeared. Thus he didn't teach "the manner of the Jews" to his people.


Now I could be completely wrong. And I'm certainly not condemning anyone learning of, nor am I condemning, the manner of the Jews. It's just an observation on that 25th chapter.

Nor would I question how you view the material, however if you have even a grasp of the huge significance of the mandate of a second witness in matters spiritual, I might proffer a second witness to my testimony of the legitimate possibilities of looking a little further that your interpretations might incline you:

A talk by Bruce R. McConkie is found at the following link.

http://www.lds.org/e...standing-isaiah

Following are a couple of the more poignant thoughts:

Nephi said: “… my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah. …” (2 Ne. 25:5.) Personally, I feel about Isaiah and his utterances the same way Nephi felt and think that if I expect to go where Nephi and Isaiah have gone, I had better speak their language, think their thoughts, know what they knew, believe and teach what they believed and taught, and live as they lived.
It just may be that my salvation (and yours also!) does in fact depend upon our ability to understand the writings of Isaiah as fully and truly as Nephi understood them.

8. Learn the Manner of Prophesying Used among the Jews in Isaiah’s Day.

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.
Nephi chose to couch his prophetic utterances in plain and simple declarations. But among his fellow Hebrew prophets it was not always appropriate so to do. Because of the wickedness of the people, Isaiah and others often spoke in figures, using types and shadows to illustrate their points. Their messages were, in effect, hidden in parables. (2 Ne. 25:1–8.)

Similarly, many chapters dealing with latter-day apostasy and the second coming of Christ are written relative to ancient nations whose destruction was but a symbol, a type, and a shadow, of that which would fall upon all nations when the great and dreadful day of the Lord finally came. Chapters 13 and 14 are an example of this. Once we learn this system and use the interpretive keys found in the Book of Mormon and through latter-day revelation, we soon find the Isaiah passages unfolding themselves to our view.

Read, ponder, and pray—verse by verse, thought by thought, passage by passage, chapter by chapter! As Isaiah himself asks: “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?” His answer: “them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” (Isa. 28:9–10.)

This second option is also Elder McConkie and is the better for it's treatment of the entire subject of scripture study:

http://emp.byui.edu/...-SealedBook.pdf

A quote or two:

Nephi quotes “the words of Isaiah” and says “they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy” (2 Ne 25:4). As a supplemental way of understanding the words of the prophets, he says men must be “taught after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Ne 25:5).

Authors such as Edersheim, Farrar, and Geike, writing more than a hundred years ago when men had more faith and when they believed in the divine sonship, give us much good data on these ancient customs and ways of life. The Bible a Sealed Book - Bruce R. McConkie

My final thoughts are this if you read the second one "The Bible a Sealed Book" it is actually a much better treatment.  It outlines other aspects of scripture study with these the principles he outlines.  The manner of he Jews was real enough to him to advocate it and you might profit as well.  However, he covers more traditional material as well which might be more consistent with your preferences.  Keep in mind Elder McConkie's material is precisely the same issue as what I said earlier about the average intellects approach to the manner of the Jews.  You can read it through and it uses language and terms that you are very familiar with, however you will not understand what he is saying until you have worked diligently at applying his recommendations. However, the caution that you reference in Jacob is also well served, however as a Latter Day Saint you have the tools to keep from being deceived and looking beyond the mark.  Try the approach and just don't look beyond the mark and you'll do fine.

[SamIam]

While I think Abraham's power of speech is going to be attributed in part to the power of his character.  I ran into a quote indicating that language does have the capacity to convey power in it's own right:

The Adamic tongue was a powerful language that communicated not only words and ideas but also the power of God. "And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him"  Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth, p.130 - 131

Edited by SamIam, 27 June 2012 - 04:51 AM.

[wenglund]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

What Nephi meant is something I've wanted to look into further.

When you do, please let us know. I enjoy learning from you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

ANACO, on 26 June 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Very interesting. Thank you.

Reading 2 Nephi 25, Nephi (or he appears to me) is pointing out two aspects, of the "manner of the Jews."
He stated he didn't teach his people "the manner of the Jews" because:

1. 'their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations'

I don't believe he's making a blanket condemnation - just of the Jews that he personally knew of - for he wrote of his knowledge of the regions "round about" Jerusalem.  Thus this first aspect was the reason for his Father being commanded to flee Jerusalem, for it was to be destroyed due to wickedness. This parallels with the destruction of the Jaredite & Nephite nations, etc., etc.

Secondly, Nephi refers to the manner [of prophesying among] the Jews.

2. 'I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.'

Then Nephi follows by saying he did not teach his children after the manner of the Jews - of course Nephi wouldn't teach about darkness or abominations - so here he seems to be referring to their method of teaching/learning/prophesying - which again, Nephi did not teach to his children/people.

Thus two aspects of the manner of the Jews. Neither desirable to Nephi, it appears.

Then Nephi refers to the prophecies of Isaiah as being difficult to understand by his people (because they were not taught - by him - after the manner of the Jews) yet whoever has the spirit of prophecy can understand Isaiah. And then of his own prophecies being 'plain' or having plainess "in the which I know that no man can err" as a contrast to "the manner of the Jews."

Later, Jacob (4:16) referred to the Jews as having looked beyond the mark, causing them to stumble/fall, etc
Nephi referred to that mark as being Jesus Christ (Ch 25). So apparently the manner of the Jews wasn't desirable, because due to it, it was difficult to arrive at what the law (of Moses) pointed to. Thus when Christ came, as we know, He was rejected by the Jews at Jerusalem. Nephi foresaw this in vision (v.13) and didn't want his people to reject the Messiah when He appeared. Thus he didn't teach "the manner of the Jews" to his people.

Maybe this could explain why the Nephites, who lived the Law of Moses, generally seemed more faithful and believing, versus the Jews in Jerusalem who also kept the Law of Moses, when the Savior appeared to both groups. This may be why Nephi did not perpetuate Jewish tradition, i.e., their manner of teaching and prophesying, among his people.

Now I could be completely wrong. And I'm certainly not condemning anyone learning of, nor am I condemning, the manner of the Jews. It's just an observation on that 25th chapter.

The manner of the Jews, apparently, was not among the Nephites nor in the Book of Mormon. This is why I posed my earlier question to Volgadon.

Anyway, thanks for your patience.

Interesting take. Something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ANACO]

SamIam, on 27 June 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

While I think Abraham's power of speech is going to be attributed in part to the power of his character.  I ran into a quote indicating that language does have the capacity to convey power in it's own right:

The Adamic tongue was a powerful language that communicated not only words and ideas but also the power of God. "And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him"  Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth, p.130 - 131

It's not the language. It's the power of the priesthood exercised faithfully and righteously, that the elements obeyed Enoch, no matter the language he spoke. Cain, essentially, spoke the Adamic language. Why would the elements obey him?

For more about language, read Ether 12:24. The Jaredites may have spoken the Adamic language, or Noah's, assuming after their thousands of years of history after being led from the tower of babel, it wasn't corrupted.

It's also an interesting take, Elder McConkie's view, or what you presented of his, "on the manner of the Jews" in your previous post.

Kind regards.

[DonBradley]

Awesome, Volgadon! Thanks for sharing this.

I do find it a bit ironic to find a rabbi from Chernobyl talking about people acquiring immense powers of light, given the later events of his hometown. But the sort of presently available theosis he decsribes is awesome.

Don

[volgadon]

DonBradley, on 14 July 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Awesome, Volgadon! Thanks for sharing this.

I do find it a bit ironic to find a rabbi from Chernobyl talking about people acquiring immense powers of light, given the later events of his hometown. But the sort of presently available theosis he decsribes is awesome.

Don

Thanks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hasidic folklore actually connects the disaster to the desecration of R. Menahem Nahum's tomb.
http://www.jstor.org...sid=56307850333
I'm considering a paper, or at least a blog post, on Hasidic conceptions of theosis. Most of it is daring, despite being framed cautiously