And about Peterson's claimed hebrew/jewish scholar contacts

[_RockSlider]

The Sephirot is not a part of orthodox Judaism, but of mystical Judaism, and neither of them have ever had a temple, so I have a hard time accepting their dogmas.

I'm not an educated man (that will become obvious), and do not know a lot about all of the different sects, or kinds of Jews.

I knew from my studies, that my interests would not be fulfilled by various liberal jews, but only hard core jews ... I'm using the term orthodox jew here to refer to the most hard core jews I came across (lubivitch being one of the most hard-core).

For example, the congregation I mentioned in Sugarhouse lived within the legal number of steps to their Synagogue (an old beater house) that could be taken on the Sabbath for example. That’s what I’m referring to as orthodox.

I was originally referred to this rabbi from the oal chats because he was a teacher of Kabbalah. It was my feel/understanding that most Lubivitch rabbi’s would also be teachers of Kabbalah?

The more interesting question here might be, was Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo rabbi friend a mystic Jew? Based on a statement I made earlier about the 2.5 billion year eternal round / Book of Abraham connection … there is a good chance Joseph Smith had been introduced to Sefer Yetzirah and it well might have influenced Book of Abraham translations as well as Temple ceremony evolution.

P.S. don’t fear meditation or the “mystic jew” term! Some of the core concepts of the master rabbi writers of old were to be able to embed hidden meanings into simple text. Seeing and understanding the symbolism is/was the goal. It always struck me funny that the church seemed to shun meditation. I suppose it’s one of those eastern verses western religion based things?

[_RockSlider]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. The latter can be, and has been, changed at various times.

And that's about all I'm going to say. The temple is deeply sacred to me. I don't discuss its rituals very much outside its walls, and I simply won't do so on a public message board -- to say nothing of this particular message board.

My sincere apologies, but that's the way it is for me.

Totally understand, and respect your position.

[_maklelan]

I'm not an educated man (that will become obvious), and do not know a lot about all of the different sects, or kinds of Jews.

I knew from my studies, that my interests would not be fulfilled by various liberal jews, but only hard core jews ... I'm using the term orthodox jew here to refer to the most hard core jews I came across (lubivitch being one of the most hard-core).

For example, the congregation I mentioned in Sugarhouse lived within the legal number of steps to their Synagogue (an old beater house) that could be taken on the Sabbath for example. That’s what I’m referring to as orthodox.

I've been to their synagogue. There are a number of different manifestations of Judaism, orthodox and otherwise, though. They can probably define exactly what they are for you and explain the fundamental differences between them and others.

I was originally referred to this rabbi from the oal chats because he was a teacher of Kabbalah. It was my feel/understanding that most Lubivitch rabbi’s would also be teachers of Kabbalah?

The more interesting question here might be, was Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo rabbi friend a mystic Jew? Based on a statement I made earlier about the 2.5 billion year eternal round / Book of Abraham connection … there is a good chance Joseph Smith had been introduced to Sefer Yetzirah and it well might have influenced Book of Abraham translations as well as Temple ceremony evolution.

That's not an uncommon assumption, but the historical evidence makes it difficult to support. Bill Hamblin, although a bit polemical in this paper, reviews in the following Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View, where Quinn argues Smith got a lot of his theology and cosmology from Kabbalistic religions:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/pdf/revi ... 3-12-2.pdf

P.S. don’t fear meditation or the “mystic jew” term! Some of the core concepts of the master rabbi writers of old were to be able to embed hidden meanings into simple text. Seeing and understanding the symbolism is/was the goal. It always struck me funny that the church seemed to shun meditation. I suppose it’s one of those eastern verses western religion based things?

I dabbled in a few eastern philosophies before I joined the church, so I don't feel at all threatened by it. I still do yoga and meditate regularly.

[_RockSlider]

…I suppose all that talk from Hyrum Andrus about another restoration being required could be an answer.

I disagree, but at least you're not being antagonistic.

If my inner quote here is what you disagree with, consider the following …
Joseph Smith became a King and a Priest, turning the reigns of Prophet over to his brother before his death.

Hyrum taught that this was the actual time of fulfillment of the “full restoration” of things. Of course that was short lived (we have no living King/Priest on the earth at this time), so another restoration is coming!

Along these lines, remember that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” is a temporary organization. It did not exist until well into the Book of Mormon story (i.e. the reign of the kings (and priests) was over) it also will not exist in the millennial reign.

One day we might see some real Alma chapter 13 High Priests, and the restoration of the Holy Order

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. The latter can be, and has been, changed at various times.

Would you agree that the endowment ceremony is, as you say, "presentation"? And if so, would you also agree that pretty close to everything in the ceremony is open for change?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Only partly.

No, not really.

We can talk about this in the temple sometime.

[_RockSlider]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. The latter can be, and has been, changed at various times.

Would you agree that the endowment ceremony is, as you say, "presentation"? And if so, would you also agree that pretty close to everything in the ceremony is open for change?

The question is not to me, but this was my strong take on it:

presentation ... don't care so much (no one is picking up the symbolisms anyway) ....

Ordinances ... sorry can not change (poor deacons saying the sacrament prayer 3 times)

Of course lots of speculation can get thrown around about where the line is between presentation of the endowment and the receiving of required ordinances.

Sounds like the latest initiatory changes walked all over any possible presentation lines.

[_Black Moclips]

Rockslider -

Did you ever read the Beyond the Mark series by Max Skousen or his Temple Book? I'm curious as to what you thought about them if yes. I learned more about the temple and the symbolism in the first few pages of the Temple book than all of the accumulated attendance of sessions.

Personally, I agree with Skousen that no one will learn the symbolism unless there is an avenue to discuss it and learn it. And please, no one chime in and say "you can discuss it in the CK room" because that is completely absurd. Its just not the place for theological discussion or education. You can't bring books or papers in, nor have more than whispered chit chats. I giggle when people say "I learn something new everytime" because I know they are just repeating the cliché. What, you noticed an animal you missed? You heard a new emphasis on a particular word you didn't notice before? Please. That is more just I-Spy than learning.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can't say that I've learned something new every time. But I often do.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't say that I've learned something new every time. But I often do.

Hello Dr. Peterson,

This is an interesting assertion. What kinds of new things did you often learn?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me