Kabbalah And Mormonism

[SamIam]

Oops previous post was post 5 this one is post 6

Again not to beat a dead horse but the traditionally educated individual glorifies the possession and manipulation of knowledge. The Jews perceive knowledge as only a portion of a triad of required principles where the absence of any one of the three weakens the usefulness of the information. The three are knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It is this principle that separates the General Authority side of the church from the intellectual side of the church. The intellectual side touts the superiority of knowledge to the exclusion of the wisdom and understanding of its appropriate dissemination. The general authority side, more steeped in the necessity of wisdom and understanding, much less often make the mistakes of the intellects. I am hyper-developing this line of reasoning as I actually fear that the principles will be summarily dismissed since they are not within the typical range of familiarity for most of us.

To finish on this point another theme that defines for me that Christ is acting the role of a sun is this comparison by Joseph Smith drawing the similarities of the role of Christ as following in the footsteps of his father:

What is it? (To be a joint heir with Christ) It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came

rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit

what God did before. (Joseph Smith , King Follet Discourse.)

Once all this continuity starts to come together vistas of seemingly unrelated concepts begin to flow into the mix. That is why I have gone into so many tangents of thought to illustrate the checks and balance that exist by using these principles. Again for illustration, another seemingly totally unconnected concept is referenced in the scriptural thought that Christ would be born in the meridian of time.

Years ago when I was studying chiasmus, it was explained that the pattern of the central theme of the chiasmus is the most significant point of the verse structure that formed the chiasmus. One day I began wondering why was the term “meridian” significant in describing Christ’s existence on earth. After a few weeks, I realized that the concept of chiasmus was not limited to scripture but was one of the fingerprints of God’s patterns that was manifest in the passage of mortal time as well. Ie. 1.) Paradisiacal Eden, 2.) Priesthood taken from Cain, 3.) flood baptism of earth, 4.) Melchiedek priesthood removed from people as a whole, 5.) Diaspora, 6.) Birth of Christ, 6.) Death of Christ, 4.) Priesthood returned, 5.) gathering of House of Israel initiated, 2.) Blacks receive the priesthood, 3.) Baptism of Fire, 1.) Paradisiacal millennial state of the earth. This isn’t perfect ordering but the overview of the theme is apparent though lacking from my imperfect understandings. The point is that once again Christ’s position chronologically places him as the being around whom the annals of our mortal existence revolve. Once again this ties in to the entire concept of serving in a sun, central, and presiding role. Meridian ceases to be a casual, coincidence and becomes a precise implication that expands how incredibly fascinating is the intertwining of eternity and scriptural references to such.

To be continued on post 7

[SamIam]

Volgadon commented that he saw the endless theme of the Pearl of great price as a coincidence. I am convinced, by seeing how things once completely unrelated in my mind suddenly become integrally related, that there is absolutely no sense of coincidence in the scripture. I apologize profusely that I cannot provide the actual quote or the source but one of my books makes the statement that according to Rabbinic tradition that the Rabbis will not understand the scriptures completely until the Messiah comes. He will interpret the Torah and he will interpret the words of the Torah and in addition to the words he will interpret the letters of the words of the Torah and finally he will interpret the spaces between the words of the torah. I believe this to be so.

Now to conclude, I will reference a potential issue to all of this analysis. If one accepts that the earth is going to become a celestial kingdom as stated in D & C 88 (which I do) then this could manifest as an inconsistency to the reasoning thus provided and for me a point of unraveling the whole of it. Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse makes the statement:

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a

great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while

certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me. (Joseph Smith, King Follet Discourse)

For a long time, I never thought about it but it was just a natural assumption that to dwell in everlasting burnings implied both the presence of the spirit in purity and also the imagery of a burning mass. I kind of just (again not cognizantly but rather without much thought) thought that the earth would become a sun glowing with the light and heat of a sun and the home of celestial beings. Now I haven’t ever found any quotes or statements for or against this conclusion but, according to my line of reasoning presented in this document, that would actually mean the earth as an orb of feminine gender assignment was going to change gender and become an orb of male gender. I had held this perspective for so long prior to it coming into conflict with the reasoning found in this document that it had to be resolved. So again, I returned to the patterns of existence that we do have. The primary being that no man makes it to the celestial kingdom independent of a wife of celestial qualification as well. Eternal life only exists on the principle of male and female roles uniting and becoming as one but physically distinctly separate. If a universe was going to be a universe of celestial glory wouldn’t that entail a Celestial masculine entity surrounded by celestial feminine entities. Wouldn’t each of these have to undergo whatever changes are required to make them into celestial orbs – D & C 88 describes such for the earth. So again while I have no clear evidence in terms of actual statements or scripture that pins this down, over time the concepts discussed in this paper have caused me to see that it most likely is according to the pattern we are familiar with and that there are celestially glorified masculine and feminine orbs that comprise a universe and yet continue to retain and fulfill the roles consistent with their gender.

To be continued on post 8 - the concluding post

[SamIam]

This covered a lot of ground but I wanted to put in the extra effort to detail out a thought process that utilized a manner of thinking that I have found has evolved from my efforts to undertand PRDS, Kabbalah, the 10 sefirot, Jewish law, Hebrew, Targums, Hillel, Eliazar, Pseudepigrapha etc… and all other symbolisms and writings that I have encountered. (The 10 sefirot tie beautifully as a phase embraced by the Joseph Smith Diagram of the eternity of God- definite high level understanding of the order of Kabbalah for those who have questioned his sense of Kabbalah – a later discussion perhaps).

This is just the process that for me caused me to compare my understandings of continuity in gender roles throughout the creations of eternity and the consistency of the patterns at all levels. I am not saying that my way is better than another’s per se, simply illustrating that the individual points of interpretation are bolstered by their capacity to be seamlessly integrated into the one great whole which must occur as we spiritually mature. In PRDS this is the concept that one level of understanding cannot exclude a lower level but instead must be able to embrace it in order for it to be a valid understanding. For LDS our comparison model is line upon line precept upon precept. Every wrong precept that we accept will stall at some point as we move up the levels of understanding. That is why there really is not a point of understanding that can stand alone - it must integrate into the whole or it will become a false principle of understanding. I know frequently in these types of communication we try to be gentle and allow everyone their personal perspective without being overly critical. I hope it will be realized that I am in no way trying to be critical – simply instructive.

Whew!

[Bill Hamblin]

Some issues:

1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group. So we cannot

2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. The 13 rabbinic rules of exegesis are attributed to Rabbi Ishmael, who lived in the second century CE. These ideas developed much later than Nephi, and Kabbalistic forms of exegesis even later still. So it is not at all certain that Nephi had reference to either Rabbinic or Kabbalistic "things/word".

3- A fundamental problem is contextualization. Kabbalistic exegesis (and to a lesser extent Rabbinic exegesis) is based extreme decontextualizing esoteric of the Tanakh. Nothing is what it seems; anything can mean something else. Everything can be recontextualized any way one wants. In my opinion the fundamental problem is that decontextualization leads ultimately to confusion not to enlightenment. (This is also manifest in the fact that if you assume the BOM was written in the 19C you get radically different interpretation of its meaning than if you assume it was written in antiquity.)

[wenglund]

Hi Samlam,

I very much enjoyed what you wrote, and I can't say that I disagree with any of it, or that any of it disagrees with what I have suggested.

I, too, view the sun as symbolic of Christ, and I really appreciated the way you explicated the symbolism.

However, I don't see this as a disagreement with my viewing the moon as symbolic of Christ since, as I mentioned before, there are many things on earth and in the heavens, particularly as found in scripture, which testify of Christ, just as some of these same things may also testify of other things: the sun and moon may each testify of Christ, while also testifying respectively to man and woman--and this in ways that fit the Jewish approach you talked about earlier.

I hope you don't take wrong what I said previously about the inferiority of Kabbalah. I am not dismissing or minimizing its, or at least aspects of it, potential spiritual value, but rather I am speaking in regards to authoritative priority, not just in terms of what I view as the final arbiter in possible internal disagreements, but which methods are most deserving of my time. When it comes to gaining knowledge, wisdom, and understand of the mysteries, I personally give preference to personal revelation, guidance of the Spirit, the words of prophets (ancient and modern), and instruction from inspired teachers, over Kabbalistic methods like exegesis, hermeneutics, gematria, notaricon, temurah, mantras, etc.

I can respect, though, if you and others choose otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Some issues: 1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group. So we cannot 2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. The 13 rabbinic rules of exegesis are attributed to Rabbi Ishmael, who lived in the second century CE. These ideas developed much later than Nephi, and Kabbalistic forms of exegesis even later still. So it is not at all certain that Nephi had reference to either Rabbinic or Kabbalistic "things/word". 3- A fundamental problem is contextualization. Kabbalistic exegesis (and to a lesser extent Rabbinic exegesis) is based extreme decontextualizing esoteric of the Tanakh. Nothing is what it seems; anything can mean something else. Everything can be recontextualized any way one wants. In my opinion the fundamental problem is that decontextualization leads ultimately to confusion not to enlightenment. (This is also manifest in the fact that if you assume the BOM was written in the 19C you get radically different interpretation of its meaning than if you assume it was written in antiquity.)

Excellent point to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Volgadon commented that he saw the endless theme of the Pearl of great price as a coincidence.

That was Bill Hamblin who said it. My opinion is that Ein-Sof as described in LDS scriptures is not really the same thing as in Kabbalah.

I am convinced, by seeing how things once completely unrelated in my mind suddenly become integrally related, that there is absolutely no sense of coincidence in the scripture.

But there are phrases that might mean one thing to one group and another to others.

I apologize profusely that I cannot provide the actual quote or the source but one of my books makes the statement that according to Rabbinic tradition that the Rabbis will not understand the scriptures completely until the Messiah comes. He will interpret the Torah and he will interpret the words of the Torah and in addition to the words he will interpret the letters of the words of the Torah and finally he will interpret the spaces between the words of the torah. I believe this to be so.

Here is Moshe Idel's translation of the statement attributed to R. Levi Isaac of Berdichev.

We can see by the eye of our intellect why in the Torah [scroll] handed down to us one letter should not touch the other. The fact is that also the whiteness constitutes letters but we do not know how to read them as [we know] the blackness of the letters. But in the future God, blessed be He, will reveal to us even the whiteness of the Torah. Namely we will [then] understand the white letter in our Torah, and this is the meaning of "A new Torah will go forth from me" that it stands for the whiteness of the Torah, that all the sons of Israel will understand also the letters that are white in our Torah, which was delivered to Moses. But nowadays, the letters of whiteness are concealed from us. But in the song of the Sea, when it has been said "This is my Lord, I shall praise Him" [Ex. 15:2] It is written in [the writings of] Isaac Luria that "their soul had fled when they heard the song of the angels" and God had opened their ear to hear etc., and this is the reason why the maidservant had seen on the sea [more than Ezekiel has seen]—the whiteness of the letters, she saw what has not been seen etc., because the matter has been concealed until the advent of the Messiah.

The white letters contain the same things as the black letters, but they have a depth which must be experienced and cannot be described in words. The black letters are, so to speak, the tip of the iceberg. Contact with the divine reveals them. One of the most influential verses in Jewish esotericism was the one in the last chapter of Daniel, about how the enlightened will shine with the radiance of the sun. This was taken to mean that people could attain a transformation by esoteric study and experience (the two being interrelated). The select few could attain this in this life, whereas the majority of the people would have to wait until the messianic era in order to do so. A similar idea is present in the writings of R. Azriel of Gerona, who wrote that the light of creation was concealed for the righteous in the future. He conspicuosly ommitted the word "to come," thus removing it from the messianic realm and making it accesible to the righteous in all ages.

Edited March 9, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

(The 10 sefirot tie beautifully as a phase embraced by the Joseph Smith Diagram of the eternity of God- definite high level understanding of the order of Kabbalah for those who have questioned his sense of Kabbalah – a later discussion perhaps).

Do you mean this?

http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2009/03/09/orson-hyde-the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-hierarchy-of-the-gods/

[SamIam]

Do you mean this?

http://www.heavenlya...hy-of-the-gods/

Yes. Am I reading a sense of incredulity in your question?

[volgadon]

Yes. Am I reading a sense of incredulity in your question?

Trying to get on the same page, source-wise.

[SamIam]

Trying to get on the same page, source-wise.

Oh. My apologies. I read the link and I will need to read it again in the morning when I am more alert. However, this is not my source as it is simply my own observations and with the quick read through tonight it doesn't look like he is even seeing what I consider a much better connection.

[SamIam]

It is however the correct image that I am referring to.

[volgadon]

Oh. My apologies. I read the link and I will need to read it again in the morning when I am more alert. However, this is not my source as it is simply my own observations and with the quick read through tonight it doesn't look like he is even seeing what I consider a much better connection.

I linked to it as that is where I remembered seeing the image.

[SamIam]

I linked to it as that is where I remembered seeing the image.

The is the Sefirot image that I find most compatible with my perceptions:

http://thesefirot.blogspot.com/

It is my understanding that this is one of the more ancient depictions of the sefirot. That is very important as so much corruption exists in the new age use of Kabbalah material on top of the issues that rabbinical exegesis already encounters for the absence of the priesthood and gift of the Holy Ghost as interpretive guides.

I also have reread the material on the link you provided. The image and text concerning it is the precise image found in the Words of Joseph Smith and the Millenial Star.

However, the author is only sustaining the terminologies of the image itself, which is a nice touch but I seldom see it as necessary to validate a prophets observations with more observations of the same material, different source;unless the source is more prophetic commentary which can be used to further ones own understandings by the fresh viewpoint with additonal perspectives. It may be that the Davila material is more important than I am implying as he is referring to the Dead Sea material which I do consider valuable as a scriptural source for consideration. I may see if I can locate the material to see what the research provides.

My observations are more along the lines of how and where the 10 sefirot fit into the Joseph Smith imagery and provide transitional material from the 10 sefirot, through the Kingdom of God image on the way to the concepts of the ein-sof.

[SamIam]

I, too, view the sun as symbolic of Christ, and I really appreciated the way you explicated the symbolism.

However, I don't see this as a disagreement with my viewing the moon as symbolic of Christ since, as I mentioned before, there are many things on earth and in the heavens, particularly as found in scripture, which testify of Christ, just as some of these same things may also testify of other things: the sun and moon may each testify of Christ, while also testifying respectively to man and woman--and this in ways that fit the Jewish approach you talked about earlier.

I hope you don't take wrong what I said previously about the inferiority of Kabbalah. I am not dismissing or minimizing its, or at least aspects of it, potential spiritual value, but rather I am speaking in regards to authoritative priority,

I can respect, though, if you and others choose otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

You are absolutely correct - it really was not intended to disagree with your approach at all. You simply provided the subject matter that I could build around to illustrate an application of Jewish methodologies up to and including Kabbalah and the compatibility that I find exists. I was trying to get away from the 50,000 foot view of the theoretical and bring it into the 10 foot level of the practical use of the techniques. As I mentioned, everybody is so comfortable rehearsing the theory but I think the theory can be made more useful by the illustration of applicaton. No one in their right mind would spend two days trying to prove the moon is not a valid Christ symbolism. I could do the same thing with defending your viewpoint and it would work to a degree but I think it would be difficult to sustain it throughout the effort to reach a standard of circumscribing it into the one great whole ideology that I use to govern my efforts. In other words at some point I would have to bring it back to a core symbolism of Christ as a presiding entity. Still, for certain applications and instruction it might be superior to use the moon comparison. I only know of the material I used as it is part of a much larger personal effort on understanding the atonement. I just refocused it to match the tenor of your thread.

Your statements on authoritative priority are also well spoken. I would be a bit more absolutist and say that no matter what methodologies we may choose without the priority of personal revelation guided by the spirit you have nothing. How could I possibly choose otherwise than to recognize the truth of what you say. That said I really do appreciate your willingness to give me a 1 hour soap box to stand on.

.

[wenglund]

In addition to Bill's wise counsel, I find the study of Kabbalah and other Eastern thought to be a good thing when it opens the mind to new, revelatory-compatible understanding, though not so good when it closes the mind down and may lead it astray. After all, in my view, we have the example of Jews in Jerusalem during the meridian of time, particularly of the Sanhedrin, who, in spite of, or because of all their much learning, did not recognize their God and Messiah when he labored on earth among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SamIam]

Some issues:

1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group....

2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. ...

3- A fundamental problem is contextualization....

Bill,

1.) Nephi called them Jews – I feel pretty safe doing the same. Your observations are absolutely correct but they are basically baby with the bathwater observations. As for the timing of when certain disciplines rose you obviously did not grasp the implications of the verses that were to illustrate the statement of Paul that was provided in the rules of Hillel #4 that were provided. Apparently, 600 years after Nephi, this manner of scriptural exegesis was working for Paul just fine. As well, you are far too willing to overlook other understandings that I can tell you possess for your knowledge evidenced in your response. The written tradition of Jewish thought is, as you point out, younger than Nephi. However, the oral tradition upon which it is based goes back, some would say to the first man Adam. Nonetheless it is thousands of years old. Has it been corrupted, are there risks… absolutely. But Nephi has recommended these things to our attention and the principle of application is referenced in this thought from the Doctrine and Covenants concerning the apocrypha:

Doctrine and Covenants 91

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

2.) I didn’t create the concepts of the Learning of the Jews, manner of prophecy amongst the Jews etc. Nephi did. He is the father of this imagery and some LDS focus on this particular reference in an effort to understand the significance of why he would take the time to handicap an already difficult and slow process of etching figures into metal unless he thought it was of significance. He is the one who saw this day, he is the one who wanted to record information that he knew would be of worth to the people of our day, he is the prophet seer and revelator that determined the contents of the message under the guidance of the spirit - Not me. So moving me out of the way we are staring at Nephi and putting him on trial and of course the other general authorities that encourage considering this principle. I only say this because you did not address the contents of my material but the concept in general, which seems to imply that from the get go you have minimized any significance in the things/words of the Jews most likely long before I showed up. This is the same technique that’s purpose is to introduce doubt but those who genuinely have a testimony recognize it for what it is and in my case simply try one more time to persuade an honest response before I cease the effort.

continued page 2

[SamIam]

Some issues:

1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group....

2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. ...

3- A fundamental problem is contextualization....

Scholars use this precise technique to disprove the books of Isaiah are all the same author, or that the Pentatuch was not authored by Moses. – No evidence to prove the claim and so they build logical reasonable arguments to shake the faith of the unstable. In the past century we see more and more of the what a nice guy arguments to define Christ – but he was just a man. False perspectives for sure but generally this methodology always has a different aim than on the surface is obvious.

Being LDS, Christian for that matter, we already live in a world of mystical requirement. Prove faith, prove God, prove there is any sense to baptism for the dead as having any impact what-so-ever. Prove the spirit exists and that we can actually have more reason to believe something you cannot prove to anyone else over the “facts” of tangible evidence. We can’t - we have to suspend the thinking model fostered by the traditional education system of our time just to make it through each day with a testimony intact.

I’m only trying to point out that the Jewish methodologies have some value in expanding upon a line of mystical reasoning for which we have no curriculum equal in our typical exposures. Even at church one will often find the philosophies of men as the foundation upon which we try to build our mystical experiences. As a general rule, we approach the mystical in a haphazard fashion, amalgamated with a mishmash of personal guessing, worldy influence, spiritual insight, and fear that someone won’t agree so we better play it safe with the traditional safe answers. The Jews have a methodology and structure for considering the mystical. Sure it has its issues again for the same lackings as I have mentioned before, and for the oft chastisement of the Lord for their looking beyond the mark, but you find me any other methodology that is so well focused on explaining the unexplainable, finding the hidden and of revealing the concealed. The Hebrew language itself is a miracle of composition whose very letters and combinations of roots etc. provides explanations and subtle inferences to focus better understanding of the intent of scripture. Keep in mind it is the methodology on which I am focusing. You have the gift of the spirit - use it with some of these methodologies and you will be rewarded is all I hope to encourage.

3.) This one is actually the most serious of all. I don’t believe that you intended to be so glib, I just don’t think you read my material with the spirit of finding common ground. As I have stated several times in one way or the other, it is the marriage of the Jewish methodologies with the gift of the spirit and the foundation of the gospel that makes it work. As LDS we more particularly acknowledge it is a fools hope a best to try to understand eternity in the absence of the spirit. I also included multiple “rules” throughout my document. It is not the willy-nilly - force that square peg into that round hole - approach you seem to present. In the arguments for the issues of contextualization, you treat as if I have ignored the mandate of spiritual guidance, which I speak to throughout several of my posts.

continued on page 3

[SamIam]

Some issues:

1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group....

2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. ...

3- A fundamental problem is contextualization....

I gave the one Jewish principle from the rules of Hillel to example but from there I alluded to several caveats. Some of which are so significant that they apply to all spiritual learning to provide the guard rails of spiritual conclusions. Simple as they are, and as common as some of the terminology may feel, many do not recognize their importance and I think you unfairly undermined some of the potential to understand some significant methodologies in maintaining the integrity of our spiritual efforts.

I will glean from my post some of the key ones:

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.

This is a principle introduced by Joseph Smith in the King Follet Discourse. It is beyond profound:

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

If in some way you felt I was untrue to the message of what Joseph is saying, that is one thing and I invite you to help me see your perspective more clearly. As I didn’t say my material tastes good I’m not sure on what points you would disagree. Joseph was correct and I encourage any and all to try to develop this sense of taste to know if their conclusions are correct.

The Jews perceive knowledge as only a portion of a triad of required principles where the absence of any one of the three weakens the usefulness of the information. The three are knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It is this principle that separates the General Authority side of the church from the intellectual side of the church.

Continued on page 4

[SamIam]

Some issues:

1- There's no such thing as "the Jews." Israelites and Jews have always had many different factions and interpretations--just like any other religion group....

2- The "things/words of the Jews" (the Hebrew debar/debarim can mean either "things" or "words") refers to Jewish exegetical metrology of the sixth century BCE. ...

3- A fundamental problem is contextualization....

Again, this is one of those principles that when I first caught the message it shocked me. Knowledge, wisdom and understanding were distinctly different of course and the scriptures are constantly putting the three together as if they are parts of a whole. However, the presence or absence of wisdom and understanding being possible when one was steeped in deep knowledge never occurred to me. So many prominent and those deceived by them, people have left the church because someone raised the beacon of an Olympic torch of knowledge high over their head and with a drum majors exaggerated stepping led the band merrily down the path to excommunication. They couldn’t find even a match stick to strike to sustain their knowledge or wisdom upon the subjects they used to destroy the faith of many. Not long after this understanding grew in my heart and mind, I ceased reading the writings of the majority of the intellectual pundits of religion and now find the scriptures and word’s of the prophets my only sure sources of knowledge wisdom and understanding. To these I only add the points I can find that are sustained within the primary list above.

It was the Jews that drew the distinctions that the spirit sustained so forcefully in my heart – and I thank them for it. If I made only one point in all of my post this one is profoundly life altering when understood.

In PRDS…is the concept that one level of understanding cannot exclude a lower level but instead must be able to embrace it in order for it to be a valid understanding. This is part of the all things circumscribed into one great whole concept…

… That is why there really is not a point of understanding that can stand alone - it must integrate into the whole or it will become a false principle of understanding.

You don’t have to understand what PRDS is to recognize the significance of using this concept for your own personal scriptural studies. How often does our enlightened wisdom of the day defend tolerance and non-judgment and open mindedness in terminologies that are precisely opposite of the intended meanings of Jehovah. How often in our own Gospel doctrine classes does the theme of judgment illustrate the corrupted influence of a worldly perspective precisely in opposition to God’s intended definition? Tolerance, judgment, open mindedness and dozens of other concepts, separated outside of the constraints of the scriptures and foundation of gospel principles, become stand alone doctrines that do not build upon the line upon line, precept upon precept foundations that would enable a saint to maintain continuity of thought with the standards of God. Alternate lifestyles and a dozen other errors in thought and judgment, that would never have been tolerated by society before the ‘60s, are now being sanctioned and embraced by upstanding citizens because this principle has been concealed and forgotten. I find that when someone begins to illustrate some new private understanding that has all of the sense rightness by general definition that it will first be the taste of the material coupled with the overlay of other tangential gospel principles that alerts the error of the understanding.

If people would take the extra hours necessary and test their conclusions up and down other known portions of the gospel message letting the spirit guide we might never see a false conclusion again.

Now in an effort to grant you a clear opportunity and to try to draw out of you and honest response and not because I am sure that I am right or wrong I will posit what I think you meant to say. In a nut shell, I might guess it was something along the lines of not appreciating my authoritative tone and overbearing demeanor. I’m just very sure and comfortable with my message and I tend to take a didactic tone when I write but my intent is not to harm or insult or demean anyone. Instead I try to honor honest inquiry with honest responses.

I invite you to make a sincere critique of my conclusions and illustrate where in your perceptions my use of the techniques I describe led me down the wrong path. If you will do this, that would do more to validate your claims than dismissing with a wave of the hand and some trivial observations that to me seem to conceal something else.

[volgadon]

The is the Sefirot image that I find most compatible with my perceptions:

http://thesefirot.blogspot.com/

It is my understanding that this is one of the more ancient depictions of the sefirot. That is very important as so much corruption exists in the new age use of Kabbalah material on top of the issues that rabbinical exegesis already encounters for the absence of the priesthood and gift of the Holy Ghost as interpretive guides.

I also have reread the material on the link you provided. The image and text concerning it is the precise image found in the Words of Joseph Smith and the Millenial Star.

However, the author is only sustaining the terminologies of the image itself, which is a nice touch but I seldom see it as necessary to validate a prophets observations with more observations of the same material, different source;unless the source is more prophetic commentary which can be used to further ones own understandings by the fresh viewpoint with additonal perspectives. It may be that the Davila material is more important than I am implying as he is referring to the Dead Sea material which I do consider valuable as a scriptural source for consideration. I may see if I can locate the material to see what the research provides.

My observations are more along the lines of how and where the 10 sefirot fit into the Joseph Smith imagery and provide transitional material from the 10 sefirot, through the Kingdom of God image on the way to the concepts of the ein-sof.

I am wondering how you connect this diagram to the 10 Sefirot, this is a diagram representing various sizes of kingdoms deified men will preside over, not 10 emanations of God.

[SamIam]

One of the other posts on this discussion board mentioned the pitfalls of anonymous handles and upon consideration I find they are correct. To that ends I would like to intoduce SamIam by his given name J. Brock Lenox.

While I cannot keep this level of involvment up for long, if there are future postings I will sign them with my given name.

[SamIam]

I am wondering how you connect this diagram to the 10 Sefirot, this is a diagram representing various sizes of kingdoms deified men will preside over, not 10 emanations of God.

Wade,

2 questions

1.) Do you object if we continue to develop this thought here or would you rather we start a new thread?

2.) Does anyone know if it is possible to attach an image to a post. It would greatly aid my effort.

[volgadon]

2.) Does anyone know if it is possible to attach an image to a post. It would greatly aid my effort.

There is a picture of (ironically) a tree, which'll allow you to attach images.

[SamIam]

So many prominent and those deceived by them, people have left the church because someone raised the beacon of an Olympic torch of knowledge high over their head and with a drum majors exaggerated stepping led the band merrily down the path to excommunication. They couldn’t find even a match stick to strike to sustain their knowledge or wisdom upon the subjects they used to destroy the faith of many. Not long after this understanding grew in my heart and mind, I ceased reading the writings of the majority of the intellectual pundits of religion and now find the scriptures and word’s of the prophets my only sure sources of knowledge wisdom and understanding. To these I only add the points I can find that are sustained within the primary list above.

This should have read They couldn’t find even a match stick to strike to sustain their understanding or wisdom upon the subjects they used to destroy the faith of many.