Sorry for the delay on this entry. I'd meant to put it up last week but various things came up and then I got into a somewhat involved discussion over on LDS-Phil regarding certain aspects of the book: initially trying to explain and defend the book's position and then, somewhat unwittingly, becoming its critic. It was unfortunate as it was a debate regarding free will that I truly wanted to avoid until I'd reached that section in the book. However even Blake Ostler will agree that much of the theology in the book is founded on the assumption of libertarian free will. And I find that a problematic assumption: not because I necessarily disbelieve it (although I happen to) but because I think assuming libertarian free will unduly limits Mormon philosophy. As such readers ought to keep in mind that there are some controversial assumptions Ostler makes. He does, I feel, an admirable job defending them. But I do think one ought to keep in mind that as the book develops it is Blake Ostler's personal theology and not necessarily a broad guide to LDS theology. This contrasts with say McMurrin who tries to represent and contrast general LDS theology with Greek philosophy.
This second half of the first chapter is where I start to disagree with Ostler. That is the main reason why I split the first chapter up into two parts.
Now on page 12 Ostler takes what I feel is a brilliant approach to theology. Those of you reading my McMurrin commentary will know that traditional Christian theology tends to adopt a somewhat Greek approach. By that I don't mean that it necessarily adopts Greek philosophy. Rather it adopts a general Greek philosophical approach to the question of theology. Traditionally this entails starting with God as the first being in some sense and defined in terms of various necessary attributes. Ostler, by contrast, appeals to the Lectures on Faith which starts with the question of what a being must be like for us to have faith in. The difference in approach is remarkable and I think Ostler is quite wise to bring it up. For one, the start isn't with what is necessary for existence itself but what is necessary for any particular human being to have faith. This is important for understanding LDS theology since the Lectures on Faith is most explicitly about theology and while not written by Joseph Smith was most definitely approved as a teaching guide for theology. Indeed in the original book of scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, the Lectures was said to constitute the doctrinal part and the revelations the covenant part. However they were removed since they technically were speculative and not revelation.
As Ostler points out, Lectures arrives at the conclusion that God must be a being that can insure our salvation. The question then becomes, what must God be like to guarantee our salvation?
Ostler brings up Anselm's ontological argument which basically argues God is a being a greater than which can not be conceived. (Some argue that the argument is actually more subtle but we'll ignore figures like Marion for now) Ostler brings up quite a few other criticisms, such as the greatest being might be defective in some parts others aren't, but may still be the greatest being. I'll not get into these side issues but turn to the question of whether the being worthy of faith must be the greatest actual being. Ostler argues that the typical reading of the King Follet Discourse, where in God the Father has a Father who is greater than he, is incompatible with the Lectures
Ostler's argument is that if there were a greater being we ought worship that being rather than God the Father whom we are commanded to worship. Yet it doesn't seem clear to me why this must be an either/or situation. Surely any being worthy of worship is deserved worship. Why must we worship only one divine being? Don't we worship both Jesus and the Father? Admittedly how we worship them is different. But that doesn't seem to be at issue. Also just because these other beings are greater, if they do not have anything to do with our creation, surely they don't fit the Lectures' criteria of ability to save us. Perhaps they have the power, but according to the theology of Brigham Young, they do not have the stewardship.
There is a more subtle issue going on in this chapter though. Even though Blake hasn't introduced it, he is assuming that these divine beings don't have a nature determining their acts. Put quite simply, I think there is running through his arguments here an assumption of libertarian free will. Libertarian free will basically is the idea that a free being must be able to do anything within their power. The other view of free will, typically called compatibilism, says that to be free one need only be able to do whatever one desires. But, given ones nature, one's desires may determine what one will choose. i.e. you may have a nature that determines what choices really would happen. The libertarian denies this and says all choices must really be open.
Why does this matter? Well a compatibilist might well say that to be the greatest being one must be divine and must be of one mind with all other divine beings. i.e. no divine being will desire something an other divine being would want to stop. Consider the following quote to illustrate how Ostler appeals to this thinking.
Suppose that the revealed god desired to make Israel alone his elect nation of people but the more ultimate god desired the revealed god to make all nation elect in the same way? The more ultimate god would prevail because the will of the revealed god is subject to that of the more ultimate god. ...I think that this argument, derived from the Lectures on Faith is sufficient to show that the notion of an actually existing, more ultimate being than God contradicts what is meant by "God " in the Mormon tradition. (16)
There are two problems with this reasoning. The first, as I mentioned, is that it assumes there are such conflicts of will. But, according to libertarianism, there must at least be the potential. The compatibilist, as I mentioned, could merely say that such a being would never be a god. The second problem is that the issue isn't who would be the elect nation or anything else. The issue is that of salvation. Faith depends upon who has power to save. So long as all divine beings have equal power to save, then these arguments seem beside the point.
Now Ostler follows this up with parts that I definitely agree with. For instance a perfect being may be the greatest possible being at any moment but may, with respect to certain properties, be increasing in those properties. I should also point out that Blake simply says that faith requires only "the being sufficeient to insure eternal life and salvation in the face of all other forces in the universe actually existing." So just because there is potentially a greater being, what only counts is what beings are actual. This clearly is a big difference of theology from traditional Christianity.
The final part of the chapter deals with possible worlds. It's a great introduction although, as I've found all too often, one must be careful with possible worlds. There often can be subtle assumptions we make when we use the word possible. For instance it may well be possible for me to kill my parents. But, given my nature, it may also be that there is no possible world in which I do. How one considers possible worlds often subtlety can bring in hidden assumptions about free will if one isn't careful. Typically possible worlds deal only with logical possibility. I know I've inadvertently created very confusing comments because I use the word "possible" to mean possible given certain assumptions or possible given the current state of affairs. There's nothing wrong with that so long as one doesn't equivocate and speak one way part of the time and an other way the rest of the time without your audience being clear what you mean by possible.
Discussions on individual chapters from Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of Godliness can be found on our Reading Club page.
I should add one thing to the above. Blake's discussion of Lectures on Faith relative to the greatest being must be considered in his recognition of the problem between God the collective and god the individual. If we assume a collective, as was discussed earlier in the chapter, then the problem resolves itself someone. However I wanted to point out that we need not appeal to such a view to deal with the argument. I think, though, that my answer - that with respect to salvation they are all of one mind - ends up being fairly similar to considering God as the collective. The differences end up being subtle and probably not worth pursuing at this time.
The either/or situation leapt out at me as well. And I came to pretty much the same conclusions as Clark.
But I wanted to highlight that:
Ostler criticizes Eugene England's notion that God [our Father] could be progressing in other spheres, and says that it seems to him that one ought to worship the ultimate God. But he just asserts it.
And that:
This comes after he has explained that for LDS, God is the being who has the power to save us. The one with whom we can enter into a relationship with [with that great line about in Mormonism the face of the other is never obliterated].
How does the idea of 'greater' Gods or an 'ultimate' God change that? If the God we know from the scriptures is the one who has the power to save us in this sphere, then what does it matter if he is progressing in another sphere? This is the God with whom we can enter into a relationship with.
But there is a caveat:
This doesn't mean that I accept England's ideas on the progression of God. It's seems to me that his notions were developed to address a problem that I'm not sure actually exists.
Also:
Clark mentions that what counts is what beings are actual. This circles back around to the importance of the actuality of God being tied to a celestialized body in Mormonism and Joseph Smith's status as a personal witness of the physicality of God the Father and the Son [Which brings up a host of other issues related to omnipresence, omniscience, etc. that Ostler takes up later in the book].
To be fair, this line of thought is in Lectures on Faith as well. I'm not sure I buy the logic there either. The one big way out is to talk about sphere of responsibility. Just as the Father provides a space for us to act freely, his father may do the same for him. Indeed that seems like a way to consider things that does justice to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
I reread the first few lectures of Lectures on Faith last night. It's a rather odd book in a way. It has some very interestingly developed notions along with a lot of naivete. I really ought to do a "reading" section on it after I've finished with McMurrin.
Let me echo your and William’s qualms with this portion of the book, Clark. The biggest problems seem to be on pages 15-16 where Blake writes a couple of things that didn't make much sense to me.
1. He dismisses the most obvious (at least to me and many others) reading of the King Follet Discourse in favor of his reading of the Lectures on Faith.
This seems to be at odds with his normal pattern of accepting the later, more refined teachings of Joseph over the earlier teachings. Granted, Blake may read the KFD passages differently than most, but he doesn't defend or explain this very well.
2. He dismisses Prof. England's arguments on an eternal regress of Gods based on the idea that any God above our Father could overrule our Father.
First, I found England’s arguments very persuasive and Blake’s dismissal rather abrupt and unsupported. Second, as you mentioned, this seems completely unnecessary. Even though I am sympathetic to Blake’s libertarian free will leanings, it seems strange to me that he does not lean on the obvious potential answer to this dilemma that he himself wrote just a few pages earlier. That is that it is God the collective that we are worshipping rather than just one of the Godhead. If it really is God the collective we worship then that would include all Fathers and Sons throughout eternity, not just our Father and Son. Joseph himself discussed how the title Elohim is plural, why does Blake completely ignore and dismiss this? Any thoughts Clark? (Blake, if you see this – I’d really love to know from you as well…)
The good news is that this is the biggest complaint I have had with the book in the first couple of hundred pages. I greatly appreciate Blake’s patience in defining terms for those of us whose philosophical training mostly consists of studying the terms in wikipedia and reading Clark’s blog.
I apologize for not finishing the next chapter. I've started on it several times this last week and things have always come up. (Our baby just started teething - you can fill in the rest) I do plan to get to the next chapters though.
Blake can speak for himself, but I believe his view is a heirarchy of the value and trustworthiness of texts. Scriptures first. Quasi-scriptures second. (The Lectures were bound with scripture and the important text in it likely mainly composed by Joseph) The King Follet Discourse was a funeral sermon and not gone over by Joseph nor submitted as scripture. Thus that's a distant third with presumably later 19th century talks in conference being a distanter fourth. (Yes, I coined my own word)
I don't agree with him on this, but I do understand it.
"Distanter" -- Nice.
That sounds like a reasonable way to order a hierarchy -- though if the goal if the truth I'm not sure it works as a hard rule. And at the T&S post on pre-existence Blake seemed more than willing to let his interpretation of the KFD trump common readings of the PoGP, so it seems those are quite loose heirarchal rules to begin with. (But I guess we all do that at times.)
The problem is that trying to establish doctrine purely by texts will always be problematic. I think part of the point of Blake's book is to recognize the hermeneutic circle we all find ourselves in.
How are we to interpret, for instance, the notion of freedom or foreknowledge? Well we start with some contexts, priviledge some texts over others and then reinterpret all the texts. Then we start the process again hopefully converging on some truth. So you have to make a decision. I think Blake's approach is intrinsically helpful, if only to get us thinking about the issue.
What I think one has to do, however, is notice that along the way he makes choices regarding intuitions, texts, and values. Change the order we place those in as we make our interpretations and the way we interpret becomes quite different.
Geoff:
I deal with the late Eugene England's view the way I do because it seems to be contrary to scripture to me. So I agree with Clark's assessment of my weighing the sources and what counts as evidence for LDS views. It seems to me that not just any view can be called LDS just because some LDS person thought it. However, I also arrive at the conclusion because the notion of a being that knows more than god or to whom god must answer seems to me to entail that god is not really God at all. Moreover, it seems clear to me that what you propose (worship of all beings who are in God's very large family) entails a violation of the most basic commandment of the Old and New Testament -- worship God alone. What you propose seems to me to be idolatry in its most basic sense.
In addition, I admit that my treatment of the interpretation of the KFD in volume 1 is cursory at best (I'm just noting possible various interpretations and opening the door for a reading that is not the usual one). I devote an entire chapter to this issue in volume 2. If you are interested, send me you e-mail address and I will e-mail a PDF of that chapter (given an understanding that you will not share it with others because my publisher is really senstive about that).
Geoff & Clark What the heck, I guess I'll flesh out just a bit the argument that LDS thought entails what I call monoarchical monotheism -- the view that there is a God of all other gods to whom all other gods answer and are subordinate. First, there is the statement in D&C 121:32 that there is a plan "which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was." That pretty well says what I assert. The Book of Abraham creation story points out that there is a Lord God who is more intelligent than all of the others (Abraham 3:19) who directs the other gods in the creation process (Abraham 4).
The LDS scriptures repeatedly assert that "God" is eternally "God." Consider the various ways in which the eternity of God is affirmed in LDS scripture:
"Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end." (D&C 20:27; cf., Mosiah 15:2-5; Alma 11:44; Ether 12:41)
"Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?" (Moses :3-5)
"By these things we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth." (D&C 20:17)
"For we know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)
Taken together, the most obvious reading of these scriptural statements is that God the Father has been a divine person from all eternity without beginning. I add a caution: the assertion that God is unchangeable" surely does not mean that God is unchangeable in all respects. Yet it seems fairly transparent that God is unchangeable in at least one crucial respect: the fact that God is divine does not change. As the Lectures on Faith (written in 1835 with Joseph Smith's oversight) stated, God "does not change, neither does he vary; but he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday, today, and forever; and his course is one eternal round."
There is of course a question about how broadly we should take the scope of the word "eternal" in Mormon scripture in general and in Hebrew and Greek scriptures in particular. The word "eternal" could mean something like the Hebrew 'olam or the Greek aionios, both of which are translated as "eternal" but can mean an unmeasured span of time like the English "aeon." However, Joseph Smith himself stated fairly clearly that when he spoke of God as eternal, he meant that God had no beginning – and he made these statements during the Nauvoo period (roughly 1839-44). In a January 1841 sermon, Joseph Smith gave a key to understanding the scriptures: "A key, every principle proceeding from God is eternal, and any principle which is not eternal is of the Devil." On 5 February 1840, Joseph Smith stated: "I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end." On another occasion in 1840, Joseph Smith stated: "the priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life."
Thanks for the response Blake. First, thank you for writing and publishing your book. I have defended many of your ideas vigorously on the bloggernacle since reading and agreeing with them.
I must admit that I only complain about this one issue because it as at odds with the assumptions I have begun making about God and the Universe. Perhaps this discussion will lead me to seeing things differently.
You say that worshipping the potential Eternal family of Gods seems like idolatry in its most basic sense. I don't understand how is any different than our worshipping 3 Gods as One God in the Godhead? If we can worship 3 as 1, then what difference does it make if more are included in the Godhead? Could they not all be One as our Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are (and as Christ implied we could be in the great intercessory prayer?)
Oops, I posted befor I refreshed and saw your follow up, Blake. I better read that to see if you already answered my question...
The obvious rejoinder is provided for in Blake's initial chapters as well. The idea that God spoken of as greatest is the collective unity and not any one person.
Ok, I read the follow up post and I agree with Clark, Blake -- I don't think it clearly does answer my questions because all of the sources you cite could apply to our Father, or His (perhaps distant) Father with whom He is One.
there is a God of all other gods to whom all other gods answer and are subordinate The identity of this individual is what I'm asking about... The Oneness of the Godhead makes it unclear. As does the whole Divine Investiture of Authority idea.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end Yes but the course of the Lord is one eternal round, and since these are titles does that support your case? I just read and wrote a short post on a great Nibley essay that I think relates to this. The essay implies that our planet is scripted like a play that runs somewhat by the same script that each of the previous innumerable inhabited worlds ran by. (At least that’s how I read into it… )
I know you believe all the sources cited apply to the Father we think of, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I mostly want to know if my inkling about the subject can be shot down easily with some text I haven't seen yet or if this is just one of those mysteries that could go either way.
I should add that while I think the unity of the Godhead is a kind of social unity, I'm not convinced it is exclusively a social unity. i.e. I'm not sure that the approach Pratt took, for all its flaws, doesn't have a kernel of truth. Something that is in the Lectures on Faith as well. The many ambiguities over the mention of "spirit" in LDS theology.
Geoff: Thanks for the kind words. It's good to know that my book has spurred both discussion and thought focusing on LDS views.
I think that you and Clark are correct: it could be the collective of the Godhead that is referred to as the "one eternal God of all other gods" -- but I doubt it. I hate to do this, but I have a volume of essays coming out (probably mid-2005) where I spend four chapters discussing the biblical evidence for the view of monarchical monotheism. It is fairly clear that Jesus regarded his Father as the God to whom all others give glory as the one God of all other gods. That's good enough for me. I'll forego the numerous scriptural references regarding Jesus's view because I think that it is ubiquitous enough that if you don't agree already there is nothing I can say to make clearer what seems so obvious to me from reading the gospels (including 3 Nephi). Needless to say, the view that there is a God of all other gods is inconsistent with the view that there is an eternal regression of gods with no god being more or less than the others. What do you make of Abraham 3:19 where "the Lord" (who is definitely not the Son -- see Abr. 3:27) is "more intelligent than they all"? It seems to me that the Father is referred to as the one who is directing everything as supreme monarch.
I think that it serves to be open to the possibility that the scriptural references are not always consistent (i.e., the "one God" is equivocal) and we can find some that point to the Godhead as a whole as the one God and some that point to the Father alone as the one God.
BTW I liked your comments on Nibley's article.
Thanks for the response, Blake. Your position on the subject makes sense. In fact I do not doubt that there is in act an individual who is the Supreme Monarch. As you mentioned the scriptures seem to make that clear. I also don't think there is "an eternal regression of gods with no god being more or less than the others". However, my lingering question is about how many generations separate Jesus Christ and the Supreme Monarch. It still seems entirely possible to me that our Father could speak using divine investiture of authority for His Father (and that could mean Father in the sense of many generational Father). The pattern is clearly established in the Godhead already so it seems there may be more generations between our Father and His first Father. Yet there is One God, and in the end One Supreme Monarch.
This seems to be difficult conclusion to avoid if, as Joseph said, our God the Father was “once a man like us, and the Father was once on an earth like us” (Wilford’s Diary on the KFD). Perhaps I’m hung up on this because I give so much credence to patternism – to the concept that the course of the Lord is one Eternal Round. But based on the things Joseph taught it doesn’t sound like our Father (the individual) is the First Father and supreme monarch you refer to, yet our God (in the Godhead sense you descibe) is nevertheless the Supreme God of all, worlds without end.
I know we may be at an impasse on this Mystery and I’m not trying to convince you. I just wanted to clarify these details.
Is it possible to read "God of all gods" in a limited sense? That we are, like Moses, given an account only of this earth, and that the Father is the supreme God pertaining to this earth (where the other gods would include even us, whom the scriptures call gods)? It seems that this would allow for a reading of the scriptures Blake cites that would be compatible with the idea of an eternal regression of Gods.
Christopher Bradford
I tend to think that is right Chris. Further I take the social unity as being what allows God to be God. So it is somewhat tied together.
While I am impressed by the quality of all the scholarship, logic, and thinking I have read here (about whether or not there is a hierarchy of Gods), isn't there one underlying problem--and it is a real killer--reliance on scripture (or at least the words of scripture)? By that I mean that "scripture" is repleat with (how do I say this respectfully) untruths. Yes, we know much/all of it is meant to be symbolic (for example, the entire Creation and Garden of Eden allegory) and reveal (to the pure in heart?) truth or true principles, but how can we rely on any particular phrase or section to be unvarnished truth?
That God is eternal and unchangeable could easily be interpreted as no different from we are eternal and unchangeable. We just aren't told what, specifically about us is unchangeable. If we develop god-like attributes, what is the logic (other than Augustine's) that God didn't also--based on "eternal" principles that are uncreated?
In other words, we have to take any/all scripture as only pointing toward truth, not clearly stating it. The truth is usually encoded, symbolic, metaphorical, or whatever. Yes, I know that seems to leave us with no leg to stand on and no common ground to discuss.
"I greatly appreciate Blake's patience in defining terms for those of us whose philosophical training mostly consists of studying the terms in wikipedia and reading Clark's blog."
I had to laugh at the above quote because it describes me perfectly. :)
I think most of us would agree with that Phil. I think you'll find that those analyzing the implications of scriptures and theology are those least likely to be dogmatic. I see the importance of theology not as proscribing beliefs but rather as working out the range of possibilities given certain beliefs. I don't believe anything simply because of a philosophical analysis. I'm far too pragmatic for that.
I think Phil has made some pertinent comments also about scripture pointing to truth, but not necessarily declaring it once and for all final.
I received the complete 23 volume "Zohar" for Christmas. They are simply huge texts, with the full Aramaic and English translation along with Rabbi Ashlag's commentary. In the first volume (which I just am finishing up), the "Beresheith" the rabbis give over 60 different and fascinating explanations of what the first sentence in the Torah means, "Beresheith bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz," "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The tie in with the number 6 is just hauntingly entertaining to me personally, as 6 is a very important number theologically to the ancients.
Now, you may or may not be aware that the Jews of the Zohar wrote, explained, and made the Zohar for the purposes of finding the, what I have come to call, after Alma 12, "The greater portion of the word." They expound, explain, digest, search for, enlighten, deepen, and broaden our understandings of the scripture like no one else on the planet ever has. The Zohar is the Medieval Jewish commentary (for lack of a better word, to the Jews who received this light, it was pure scripture!) around 1200 A.D. (its formal presentation being then anyway, ignoring the oral aspects of their teachings which go back many centuries) of the Torah, the Ketuvim, and the Nevi'im, the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets, essentially, our Old Testament.
They teach that one who studies the Torah, and finds new explanations, new interpretations, are actually being partners with God in creating new heavens and new earths. Their desire for total understanding of the scriptures is the most astonishing thing I have ever looked into thus far. Rather than being dogmatic, and finding, supposedly, THE ONE, and only true interpretation and understanding of the scripture in a closed and dogmatic sense, they unfold, and cause to grow, our understandings and meanings in, what I have termed, "the upward spiral into the light." It is an ongoing creation process of finding greater applications of information and truth about God,Israel, our relationship with both, etc.
The reason I digress into all this, is because I see Blake's attempts in the philosophical analysis of the scripture to be very much in the same spirit as the Zoharic rabbis. And I can't hardly think of a finer compliment to give Blake than this!
Best,
Kerry
Kerry: Thanks! I've read most of the Zohar (several times) and I like its macrocosmic and mystical (in the classic sense) approach to God. I'll be interested to see what you draw from getting into it.
I finished the first volume and am in the second one. I browse through several of them also all the time, but am systematically reading as well. I will certainly keep up with ya on this and let you know my thoughts.
The one thing I noticed after finishing the Beresheet A, is the contemplation of the Hermetic doctrine of "As Above, So Below." The Jews definitely had that in their thinking, as for instance the discussion of the earthly tabernacle coinciding with the heavenly copy above. The one is the reflection of the other. They appear to me to be doing the same type of "reflecting" with men and gods. What is above, is what is below, even proposing that the spirits of the righteous above are in the same form as man is here below! I thought that was sort of just nifty. As they say in the Zohar, "Wise men are informed by hints." GRIN!
Hi Blake........
Hey the sentence in Nibley (Message of Joseph Smith Papyri" p. 271) here - "The ritual embrace, Frankfort observes, was "no mere sign of affection, but a true fusion, a communion between two living spirits, unio mystica"
is a very important concept. The Zohar says "there is a joy of uniting a spirit with a spirit." (Vol. 2, p. 92). This union is with the "supernal spirit, the soul of all." (Zohar, 2:97). The whole point is the uniting, so they complement each other, embrace each other, and become ONE, which is appropriate. That is how the Zohar puts it!
I have had run ins with Christians who claim that this "Mormon" doctrine of deification takes AWAY from God! The Zohar, I believe teaches this in a far different and uplifting spirit though.
""when the two spirits that are one shine..." (p. 88)
"spirits are contained within spirits, and lights within lights. All are contained within the other, until they become one." (p. 91)
In fact, this is the meaning of "the garden of Walnuts." When asked what it means, the Zohar teaches that "I went down to the chamber of Ahavah, (Hebrew word for love) to united the male and the female." (p. 91).
The unification, not only of the sexes,(I suspect this is the Gnostic meaning of Jesus' saying that the female has got to learn how to be male, and the male learn how to be female!) but of spirits, of light cleaving to light (a D&C image!), but also through physical means and contact, embraces, kissing, etc., is the Egyptian Sensen idea as Nibley noted as well. It is the highest most intimate contact of humanity with ourselves, as well as humanity with God. This is the New Testament idea of the holy kiss.
Further, the Zohar says this is the secret to the scripture "Jacob kissed Rachel." (Gen. 29:11) Every aspect of Zeir Anpin (the small face of the sephiroth) is connected with every aspect of the chambers (the sephiroth) "and the supernal holy spirit therein." Because the upper chamber receives as does the upper spirit Ratzon, "so that they can kiss, connect with, and complement each other. Ashlag notes - JACOB IS THE SECRET OF ZEIR ANPIN, AND RACHEL IS THE FEMALE PRINCIPLE CONTAINING ALL OF THE CHAMBERS THAT ELEVATED TO ATZILUT. (vol. 2, p. 93)
But the Zohar is VERY similar to Joseph Smith in the King Follette Discourse when it says "joyous is the portion in this world and the next of he who knows how to link them and cleave to his Master." (p. 94). Joseph taught that we have got to learn how to become Gods ourselves. This is the Zoharic teaching, through unification. This is Jesus' great intercessory prayer in John 17. Notice ALL the personal pronouns! I in YOU, and YOU in ME, WE in THEM, and THEY in US, etc. Wow.......... There may be more to becoming One than we have traditionally supposed....... I am still reading and enjoying....I shall share more ideas as I find them. That will take years......GRIN!
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble