To the Kabalist: metaphorically speaking

[Kukui]

I apologize for my insensitivity to the reference to MMM.

Kukui

Edited February 28, 2010 by Kukui

[Elphaba]

I call this thread the Mountain metaphor massacre because maybe most LDS won’t agree with my thoughts here.

I think the title of your thread is disrespectful. I know you didn't mean it to be; however, given the horror of the MMM, I think any frivolous wordplay on its title is inappropriate.

Elphaba

[Maureen]

I think the title of your thread is disrespectful. I know you didn't mean it to be; however, given the horror of the MMM, I think any frivolous wordplay on its title is inappropriate.

Elphaba

I agree with Elphaba. You could have named the thread something more appropriate to what you're looking for.

M.

[pam]

I think the title of your thread is disrespectful. I know you didn't mean it to be; however, given the horror of the MMM, I think any frivolous wordplay on its title is inappropriate.

Elphaba

I agree, I've edited it.

[Maureen]

I agree, I've edited it.

This thread has nothing to do with MMM.

M.

[Guest mysticmorini]

This thread has nothing to do with MMM.

M.

To be honest i was kinda disappointed, just recently i started researching the MMM. I didn't know it happened in the middle of the mormon war. in most wars civilian casualties are overlooked and accepted.

[john doe]

I hope the new title is acceptable.

[pam]

This thread has nothing to do with MMM.

M.

Sorry that was the first thing that came to mind. My apologies. I'm glad it was corrected from my correction. :)

[Elphaba]

To be honest i was kinda disappointed, just recently i started researching the MMM. I didn't know it happened in the middle of the mormon war. in most wars civilian casualties are overlooked and accepted.

You're disappointed because the cold-bloodeed massacre of 120+ men, women and children is not considered acceptable?

Elphaba

[Guest mysticmorini]

:offtopic:You're disappointed because the cold-bloodeed massacre of 120+ men, women and children is not considered acceptable?

Elphaba

no!!!!!!! because the thread is not about the MMM

[Elphaba]

no!!!!!!! because the thread is not about the MMM

Oh, okay. My apologies for misunderstanding.

Elphaba

[john doe]

no!!!!!!! because the thread is not about the MMM

That's been beaten to death too. There are plenty of threads on that already. Use the search function if you need to find one.

[volgadon]

To TheKabalist

After your analysis of 1 Nephi Chapter 11 our friend Vanhin quoted Isaiah 2: 2-3

I would be interested if you could comment on the use of mountain and kingdom/nation as used by Isaiah in the following verses. Is there a connection in the Kabalist tradition between mountains and nations?

Of course he is more knowledgeable on Kabbalah than I am, but I don't recall much of the sort either in it or in other Jewish interpretations.

ISAIAH 13

4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.

Note the preposition 'in'. Even a quick glance at Judean geography will reveal why mountains are in that verse.

ISAIAH 64

1 OH that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence,

2 As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!

3 When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence.

(nice little chiasm there)

Without waiting for your answer I will proceed with my thought. If it can be shown that Isaiah has more than one meaning for mountain such as nation, temple, holy places, then this gets interesting to me.

Apart from the literal, geographical sense, the usual meaning of mountain is that of a holy place. By its very definition and Hebrew etymology, a temple is a holy place. No reason to separate the two.

Vanhin wrote:

I accept what Vanhin has said and believe that most LDS do. Maybe most LDS won’t agree with my thoughts here, but Let me plug in what I see may be a possible additional reading.

As both LDS and Israeli, I don't accept your additional reading. =)

Isaiah 2

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the [nation] of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the [nation]s, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. (Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free)

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the [nation] of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways (liberty/constitution), and we will walk in his paths (of liberty): for out of Zion (America) shall go forth the law (of liberty/constitution with bill of rights), and the word of the LORD from (the New) Jerusalem (America).

As everything you have arbitrarily reinterpreted is actually temple terminology, I think your reading is forced.

What I can see in Isaiah’s words is that America can be the champion of liberty which must go forth throughout the world before people can choose for themselves to live in harmony with the principles of the restored gospel. I am sure I will get flack over the word of the Lord going from the New Jerusalem (America) but that could be the pre-millennial era. Post Millennial era would most likely be the Jerusalem of Israel.

Whether or not I can tease out of Isiah’ prophecy a possible additional reading, I still believe the concept, but I won’t be teaching it in Sunday School.

Kukui

You could probably see that in anything.