NOM

Sometimes secret Masonic words work their way into the modern world. Like the One Ring of Sauron, they want to be found. Consider the original words for Dion's song, Abraham, Martin and John.
There was a verse that asked, "has anybody here seen zub zool oan?", but that was changed to "my old friend Martin" simply because the songwriter did not possess the grand key. Likewise, the song Follow the Yellow Brick Road was changed from Zubbity Zoolity Oan to the main title. Even Shakespeare used this masonic message in his play, Julius Caesar. When the character Brutus stabbed him, Julius responded, "Zub zool oan" but it ended up being changed to "et tu Brute?" There are undoubtedly other times this sacred word combination broke through the aether and inserted itself into the common consciousness as George Miller has already related with that instance of Ghostbusters.

moksha wrote:Sometimes secret Masonic words work their way into the modern world. Like the One Ring of Sauron, they want to be found. Consider the original words for Dion's song, Abraham, Martin and John.
There was a verse that asked, "has anybody here seen zub zool oan?", but that was changed to "my old friend Martin" simply because the songwriter did not possess the grand key. Likewise, the song Follow the Yellow Brick Road was changed from Zubbity Zoolity Oan to the main title. Even Shakespeare used this masonic message in his play, Julius Caesar. When the character Brutus stabbed him, Julius responded, "Zub zool oan" but it ended up being changed to "et tu Brute?" There are undoubtedly other times this sacred word combination broke through the aether and inserted itself into the common consciousness as George Miller has already related with that instance of Ghostbusters.

You rock Moksha!!!!!

George Miller wrote:"...until we arrive at the perfect knowledge of truth..."

That certainly has a mormon-y ring to it.

Also, I find it interesting that there are two Egyptian graphemes that sound like Abraham's name, and which basically describe who Abraham was. How convenient for him when it came time to write his own story in Egyptian.

George, I'm really enjoying these posts. In my view Joseph's perspective was definitely colored by Freemasonry and Kabbalah so it is nice to see you walking through the Book of Abraham's ties to Masonry, which are significant.

Somewhat unrelated, are you aware of the almost verbatim quotes of the Zohar in Joseph's King Follet and Grove discourses at the end of his life?

Wow! This thread though, excellent and fascinating.

Another parallel that struck me from the masonic sources are the order of the words faith, hope and charity, parroted in Moroni and other Mormon scriptures:

20 Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity.

Is there any summary of all the influences the Masonic writings had on the BOM or the percentage of plagiarized ideas used there? I've seen so many recognizable symbols that are deep in the fabric of Mormonism, like the sun, moon and stars.

BTW - I love the pay lay ale meme. I can't believe that Wasatch brewery has not already come out with that one!

orangganjil wrote:George, I'm really enjoying these posts. In my view Joseph's perspective was definitely colored by Freemasonry and Kabbalah so it is nice to see you walking through the Book of Abraham's ties to Masonry, which are significant.

Somewhat unrelated, are you aware of the almost verbatim quotes of the Zohar in Joseph's King Follet and Grove discourses at the end of his life?

Orangganjil - Glad to hear you are enjoying the posts. Sorry for the delay in responded. It is the end of the semester and I have been busy.

You asked about the "almost verbatim" quotes of Zohar in Joseph Smith's King Follet discourse. As far as I know, this interpretation of the King Follet was first described by Lance Owens in his paper http://gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm. Owen's paper, while interesting, does have problems. I personally love the Zohar and slowly worked my way through the first three volumes of the Pritzker Edition which is by and far the best academic translation presently available. Owen suggests that Alexander Neibaur, Joseph Smith's Hebrew teacher, had a copy of the Zohar. However, I don't think this is the only interpretation the available data. It could be that Alexander Neibaur was simply familiar with Kabbalistic forms of interpretation. If you would like to discuss the particulars here, I would be more than happy to indulge such an aside.

RubinHighlander wrote: Another parallel that struck me from the masonic sources are the order of the words faith, hope and charity, parroted in Moroni and other Mormon scriptures:

20 Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity.

RubinHighlander- This is an interesting connection; and let's look at it in a little more depth. When examining Mormon-Masonic parallels it is important to carefully delineate between parallels that come from a Mormon-Masonic connection and similarities that come from Masonic-Christian roots instead. There is indeed an emphasis in Masonic ritual and Masonic writings on the Faith, Hope, and Charity. However, the order in which these appear in Freemasonry is dependent on Christian scripture. In particular it comes from 1 Cor 13:13 which reads "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

RubinHighlander wrote:Is there any summary of all the influences the Masonic writings had on the BOM or the percentage of plagiarized ideas used there? I've seen so many recognizable symbols that are deep in the fabric of Mormonism, like the sun, moon and stars.

The most extensive summary of potential Masonic influences on the Book of Mormon is Clyde R. Forsberg's Equal Rites. However, I can't recommend the book as in my academic opinion both his choices of parallels and his analysis of these parallels are problematic. Forsberg tends to choose parallel from Masonic sources materials that my own analysis does not support Joseph Smith having either access to or interest in. This is not to say there are not actual parallels, but that his treatment is problematic at best.

In the previous post we noted that Joseph Smith claimed that the Egyptian language was to be interpreted in 5 different degrees. I then posited that if Joseph Smith had access to Antiquities of Freemasonry he would potentially have thought that Egyptian Freemasons taught how to translate hieroglyphics at increasingly deeper meanings over the course of their Masonic degrees. In other word, Joseph Smith's use of the word degrees might also allude to Masonic degrees. If this is true, we might expect the content of Antiquities of Freemasonry to suggest a five degree system in patriarchal Speculative and Spurious Masonry.

Before discussing potential evidence for such a proposition in Antiquities of Freemasonry, however, we need to discuss the structure of Masonic degrees in early 19th century New York. There were actually several degree systems in New York during the early 1800s. The most common form of Freemasonry would have Blue Lodge Masonry which consists of three degrees: (1) Entered Apprentice, (2) Fellow Craft, and (3) Master Mason. This was the degree system into which Joseph Smith's Father, brother, uncle's and most of the male Mormons in Nauvoo were initiated. The Master Mason degree is considered the highest degree in Masonry. Despite the Master Mason degree being the highest degree in Freemasonry, there are additional degrees into which a Mason could be initiated. In New York these additional degrees were given in the Scottish Rite and the Royal Arch degrees.

One degree system which was common in New York in the 1830s was the Scottish Rite. This degree system consisted of an additional 30 degrees for a total of 33 degrees. This system of Masonry was actually taught by two competing Masonic bodies in New York. One of the Scottish Rite Masonic bodies was started by Joseph Cerneau and their most prominent member was Past Grand Master of New York DeWitt Clinton. The other Scottish Rite Masonic body, which was endorsed by the Scottish Rite organization in the south, was started in New York by Past GradAntoine Bideaud and one of their most prominent members was Past Grand Master of New York and Vice President of the United States- Daniel D. Tompkins. Joseph Smith would have had access to most of these degrees as the Masonic expose Light on Masonry contained transcripts of these degrees.

The 30 Scottish Rite degrees were divided into four divisions. (1) The degrees of the Lodge of Perfection (4°-14) tell stories during the reign of King Solomon and expand on the story told in the Master Mason's degree and reveal the ineffable name of God. (2) The degrees of the Council of Princes of Jerusalem (15°-16) take place during the return to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity and tell of how the ineffable name of God was retrieved. (3) The degrees of the Chapter of Rose Croix (17°-18°) t tell the story of the loss and recovery of the ineffable name of God and draws some symbolism from Rosicrucian symbolism. (4) The degrees of the Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret (19°-33°) tend to tell stories of of the Knights during the crusades and one of the degrees pulls heavily from material from the Kabbalah.

My own analysis suggest that Joseph Smith was largely not deeply influenced by the content of the these degrees. There are two reasons for this. First, Joseph Smith's family was heavily impacted by the events surrounding Morgan Affair. In particular, the Masonic conspiracy to abduct William Morgan was hatched in the lodge into which Joseph Smith Sr. had been initiated. The whole kerfuffle that caused his abduction was that he was, for the first time, planning on writing a book detailing the rituals of Royal Arch Masonry. Thus the zeitgeist of Masonic discussion revolved around the Royal Arch, not the Scottish Rite. Second, Joseph Smith was most interested in the original form of Masonry which he believed was practiced deep in the past by Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Since the degrees of the Scottish Rite revolved around stories which did not claim to be from this period, he would have been less interested in them. So what was the structure of Royal Arch?

The Royal Arch degrees consist of 4 degrees which largely tell stories which take place after the return from the Babylonian captivity as the Jews began to rebuild the temple. The culmination of this degrees has one lowered into the vaults under the ruins of King Solomon's temple where the ineffable name is recovered. Just as the with the Scottish Rite, the main theme of the higher degrees is the recovery of the sacred pronunciation of the name of God. This would have been a theme that would have struck a DEEP cord with Joseph Smith. During Joseph Smith's treasure seeking days, the means of obtaining the powers of heaven which would guide one to treasure was the knowledge of the divine names of the angels. Freemasonry claimed to know an even deeper divine name - the name of God.

However, it was not only the pronunciation of the divine name of God, that Joseph Smith sought. Joseph Smith would have known that the culminating degree of the Royal Arch, a degree only open to the leadership, was a degree known variously as the Order of High Priesthood or Order of Melchizedek. Thus Joseph Smith may have expected that Freemasonry contained the ceremonies of initiation into the Melchizedek Priesthood. More importantly, this final degree, the Melchizedek priesthood, was only given to those whom had previously served in the three offices of leadership which governed a group of Royal Arch Mason. According to Antiquities of Freemasonry these three offices anciently were the offices of prophet, priest, and king.

My own research has lead to a model in which Joseph Smith thought of ancient Freemasonry as consisting of a total five degrees. The first three degrees were related to the Blue Lodge degrees with the fourth and fifth degrees having a relationship with the Royal Arch degree and Order of High Priesthood degree. In reading Antiquities of Freemasonry, Joseph Smith believed that the higher degrees where presided over by a leader or leaders which held the titles of prophet, priest, and king. This was theologically important to Joseph Smith because it was a common teaching among Christians of his day, that Jesus Christ was God because he held the tripartite offices of prophet, priest, and king.

Intriguingly, Antiquities of Freemasonry suggest that the patriarchal system of Masonic degrees may have been organized into 5 degrees and that the apostate Spurious Masonry of Egypt may have shared this degree structure. This is what most likely suggested to Joseph Smith that hieroglyphics were to understood in five different degrees. In the next post I will elaborate on how Joseph Smith's reading of Antiquities of Freemasonry may have left him with this impression.

If Joseph Smith was using Antiquities of Freemasonry as a source to differentiate Egyptian Hieroglyphs into 5 degrees, then we might expect evidence in Antiquities of Freemasonry to point to 5 degrees in ancient Speculative and Spurious Masonry.

Speculative Masonry
In trying to define the nature of Ancient Masonry, Joseph would have looked for clues within Antiquities of Freemasonry to the nature of Freemasonry among the early patriarchs. It would have been obvious to Joseph Smith that Masonic degrees as practiced by Adam should not have Adam anachronistically playing the role of Hiram Abiff, the chief architect of King Solomon's temple. How many degrees were in the early patriarchal Masonic degree system and what was their nature. George Oliver actually spells out the nature of these degrees. He would suggest that the earliest ritual dramas of Freemasonry were not built on historical quasi-biblical narratives, but instead on the life of the earliest patriarch - Adam.

Seduced by these specious declarations [on Satan], the mother of all Masons violated the sacred injunctions of God, and, through her intreaties, Adam followed the pernicious example, and both miserably fell from a state of innocence and purity, to experience all the bitter fruits of sin; toil and labour, misery and death. On this unhappy dereliction from purity are founded so of those characteristic insignia of Masonry, which convey a lasting remembrance of our degenerate state, as well as the glorious promise of redemption. These TOKENS were unnecessary when man was in a state of perfection; but after the Fall they were practiced by Adam, and considered as the immoveable landmarks of the order unto this day. The FIVE events attending this transgression and expulsion from Paradise; viz the the transgression, shame, sentence, prayer, and promise, are distinguished amongst Masons by such significant tokens of reverence, penitence, sympathy, fatigue and faith, that the unhappy consequences of the three former, as well as the hope derived to mankind from the two latter, can never be blotted from the recollection. (Emphasis in original.)

Thus Antiquities of Freemasonry describe early Masonic ritual of consisting of "TOKENS" which were given which were related to "FIVE" events in the life of Adam which were "never to blotted" out completely from Masonic ritual. It may have been this description or tokens and five events that led Smith to a conclusion of five degrees in ancient Speculative Masonry.

Another Masonic idea that may have led to this conclusion was the Five Points of Fellowship which George Oliver expounds upon profusely in Antiquities of Freemasonry as Brotherly Love, Prayer, Secrecy, and to Support a Brother's Character, and Benevolence. These Five Points of Fellowship are also physically demonstrated in the Master Mason's degrees in which the candidate, who represents Hiram Abiff, is raised from death into life.

Duncan's Ritual wrote:The five points of fellowship are--foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and cheek to cheek, or mouth to ear.

1st- Foot to foot--that you will never hesitate to go on foot, and out of your way, to assist and serve a worthy brother.

2nd- Knee to knee--that you will ever remember a brother's welfare, as well as your own, in all your adorations to Deity.

3rd- Breast to breast--that you will ever keep in your breast a brother's secrets, when communicated to and received by you as such, murder and treason excepted.

4th- Hand to back--that you will ever be ready to stretch forth your hand to assist and save a fallen brother; and that you will vindicate his character behind his back, as well as before his face.

5th- Cheek to cheek, or mouth to ear--that you will ever caution and whisper good counsel in the ear of an erring brother, and, in the most friendly manner, remind him of his errors, and aid his reformation, giving him due and timely notice, that he may ward off approaching danger.

That Joseph Smith thought that these FIVE Masonic tokens were ancient is apparent in his incorporation of these directly into Mormon ritual. Thus the discussion of five events in the life of Adam as discussed in Antiquities of Freemasonry and the discussion of five points of fellowship in Antiquities of Freemasonry and from Masonic ritual likely reinforced the idea of five degrees in ancient Masonry.

In the next post I will examine suggestions in Antiquities of Freemasonry that Spurious Masonry could also consist of five degrees.

George Miller wrote:...a degree known variously as the Order of High Priesthood or Order of Melchizedek. Joseph Smith would have known that the culminating degree of the Royal Arch, a degree only open to the leadership, was a degree known variously as the Order of High Priesthood or Order of Melchizedek.

Hey George,

Does George Oliver ever, by any chance, refer to Spurious Masonry by the term "secret signs and combinations?"



p.s. I find it deliciously nerdy that this is what we're thinking about on Christmas Eve.

George Miller wrote: Orangganjil - Glad to hear you are enjoying the posts. Sorry for the delay in responded. It is the end of the semester and I have been busy.

You asked about the "almost verbatim" quotes of Zohar in Joseph Smith's King Follet discourse. As far as I know, this interpretation of the King Follet was first described by Lance Owens in his paper http://gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm. Owen's paper, while interesting, does have problems. I personally love the Zohar and slowly worked my way through the first three volumes of the Pritzker Edition which is by and far the best academic translation presently available. Owen suggests that Alexander Neibaur, Joseph Smith's Hebrew teacher, had a copy of the Zohar. However, I don't think this is the only interpretation the available data. It could be that Alexander Neibaur was simply familiar with Kabbalistic forms of interpretation. If you would like to discuss the particulars here, I would be more than happy to indulge such an aside.

George, thanks for taking the time to respond. Please, no need to apologize for any delay.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. If you don't want to derail this thread I'm happy to DM you, however I'm also fine with discussing it in this current thread.

I was first exposed to this topic when I finally read the Zohar and came across the discussion of the first few verses of Genesis. I thought, "This sounds awfully familiar," and realized it was very close to Joseph's comments in his King Follet Discourse. After that, I noticed several other parallels, which led me to suspect that Joseph had access to the Zohar and other Kabbalistic writings. Neibaur is certainly a connection here given both the amount of time Joseph spent with him and the fact that Neibaur was also teaching Joseph German.

Hagoth wrote:Does George Oliver ever, by any chance, refer to Spurious Masonry by the term "secret signs and combinations?"

p.s. I find it deliciously nerdy that this is what we're thinking about on Christmas Eve.

Hagoth- I am glad to hear that you were enjoying my post on Christmas eve. I too find this stuff SOOO interesting. You asked if George Oliver describes Spurious Masonry by the term secret signs and combinations. While it would cool if he did, I have not found such an instance. Joseph Smith of course does use the phrase "secret combination" repeatedly throughout scripture (2 Nephi 9:9, 2 Nephi 26:22, Alma 37:30-31, Helaman 3:23, 3 Nephi 4:29, 3 Nephi 7:6-9, Ether 8:18-19, Ether 8:24, Ether 9:1, Ether 11:15, Ether 13:18, Ether 14:8-10, Mormon 8:27, Moses 5:51, and D&C 42:64). During the period between 1825-1844 the phrase had a reference to a group which met in secret for nefarious purposes. However, the phrase was an epithet for Freemasonry in Anti-Masonic circles during this period. In using the phrase "secret combination" Joseph Smith was likely trying to get his readers to draw a connection to the Spurious Masonic tradition as you seem to suggest in you comments above.

orangganjil wrote:George, thanks for taking the time to respond. Please, no need to apologize for any delay.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. If you don't want to derail this thread I'm happy to DM you, however I'm also fine with discussing it in this current thread.

I was first exposed to this topic when I finally read the Zohar and came across the discussion of the first few verses of Genesis. I thought, "This sounds awfully familiar," and realized it was very close to Joseph's comments in his King Follet Discourse. After that, I noticed several other parallels, which led me to suspect that Joseph had access to the Zohar and other Kabbalistic writings. Neibaur is certainly a connection here given both the amount of time Joseph spent with him and the fact that Neibaur was also teaching Joseph German.

Orangganjil - I would be more than happy to take an aside here and discuss the matter further. As mentioned above, the possible connection between Joseph Smith's treatment of the opening verses of Genesis in the King Follett Discourse and the Zohar was first brought up in academic circles with the publication of Lance Owen's work Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection. Owen's article was well received by the Mormon History Association, and it does indeed have many merits. In this work he posits that Alexander Neibaur had a copy of the Zohar and that Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis 1:1 in the King Follett discourse is influenced by the Zohar. While I think this is a possibility, I think that there are serious problems with such an interpretation; and there are much accurate interpretations of Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis which are more in line with the extant evidence. I will explain the problems with Owen's thesis first then move on to my own explanation.

Owen's thesis that Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis in the King Follett discourse is based on several parallels which he draws between Joseph Smith's translation and the Zohar. Let's first look at the King Follett discourse and see what Joseph Smith said. Note that I am using the version as published in the Times and Seasons. To make things a little cleaner I have added original Hebrew letters into the transcription and standardized the pronunciations. In addition, I have added at the top the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 to which Joseph Smith is referring.

Genesis 1:1 - בראשית ברא אלהים

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible, בראשית [Bereshith]. I want to analyze the word; ב (Beth), in, by through, in, and every thing else. ר (Rosh), the head. שית (Shith), grammatical termination.

When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the ב (Beth) there. A man a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head. It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' that is the true meaning of the words.

ברא (Bara), signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No man can learn you more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

Owens makes the following three points about Joseph Smith's translation. He then goes on to claim that these ideas have parallels in the Zohar.

By any literate interpretation of Hebrew, this is an impossible reading. (1) Joseph takes Elohim, the subject of the clause, and turns it into the object, the thing which received the action of creation. (2) Bereshith ("in the beginning") is reinterpreted to become Roshith, the "head" or "Head Father of the Gods," who is the subject-actor creating Elohim. (3) And Elohim he interprets not as God, but as "the Gods."

The first point made by Owens is indeed true, and such a reading is found in the Zohar. However, this seems to me to be more of a demonstration of Joseph Smith's lack of understanding of Hebrew grammar than evidence that Joseph Smith was relying on the Zohar.

The second point made by Owen's is based on a misreading of Joseph Smith's interpretation. Joseph is breaking the word בראשית into three parts ב (Beth), ר (Resh/Rosh), and שית (Shith). Owen is correct that the Zohar relates ר (Resh/Rosh) to head just as Joseph Smith did. However, this parallel is likely NOT due to Joseph Smith's reliance upon the Zohar; instead there is a much more prosaic interpretation. One of the first steps in learning Hebrew is to learn the letters. It is not uncommon for teachers to describe how the letters and discuss pictorial meaning of each letter.


For example Hebrew students are told that א (Aleph) is a pictograph of an Ox and that it can represent the idea of wealth or power. Students are told that ב (Beth) is a pictograph of home. So how might Joseph Smith have gotten the idea that ר (Resh/Rosh) had the meaning of head? Well because it is often described as pictograph of a head. In other words, Joseph Smith is most likely thinking of the letters as pictographs and offering up a translation. I favor such an interpretation based on what I have found in the Egyptian Alphabet document. It just makes more sense to me.

The third point made by Owen's is problematic in the extreme. It is true that Joseph Smith's translation does not accord with the translation as found in Joshua Seixas's Hebrew grammar for the Use of Beginners from which Joseph Smith studied Hebrew. However, a look at the actual textbook shows that he would have learned that nouns were pluralized through the addition of ים (im) at the end. It is not without note that only a few lines down from this part of the language lesson is the word for God אלהים (Elohim) which has appended to it ים (im).

Thus it seems that Owen's argument is not very compelling and other more simplistic explanations are possible. My own investigation of the Egyptian Alphabet in fact favors the above more simplistic explanation. My above critique does not begin to show the problems with Owen's arguments. I would definitely check out William Hamblin's Everything if Everything: Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Kabbalah. This is FARM's extensive review of the problems with this specific argument. While I often disagree with Hamblin, I do think his analysis is accurate with regards to Owen's argument.

However, I have to tell you that my rejection of Owen's argument comes more from my own experience with the Zohar than because of the analysis above. I first came to read the Zohar by reading Daniel Matt's translation of the Zohar. It contains his translation of the text at the top with his notes below. I was immediately struck by the fact that about 80% of each page is taken up by footnotes. Like you, when I read it, I couldn't help but find connections to Mormon theology. However, I also realized that without the footnotes that there was NO WAY I could understand the text. In other words, it was the underlying Kabbalistic interpretation of the text as provided by Matt that contained the Mormon connections, not the text alone. For example, here is the text from which Owen's claims Joseph Smith adapted for his translation.

At the head of potency of the King, He engraved engravings in luster on high. A spark of impenetrable darkness flashed within the concealed of the concealed, from the head of Infinity - a cluster of vapor forming in formlessness, thrust is a ring, not white, not black, not green, no color at all. As a cord surveyed, it yielded radiant colors. Deep within the spark gushed a flow, splaying colors below, concealed within the concealed mystery of Ein Sof. IT split and did not split its aura, was not known at all, until under the impact of splitting, a single, concealed, supernal point shown. Beyond that point, nothing is known, so it is called ראשית (Reshit), Beginning, first command of all.

זֹהַר (Zohar), Radiance! Concealed of concealed struck its aura, which touched and did not touch this point. Then this beginning expanded, building itself a palace worthy of glorious praise, There it sowed seed to give birth, availing worlds. The secret is: Her stock is seed of holiness (Isaiah 6:13).

זֹהַר (Zohar), Radiance! Soweing seed for its glory, like the seed of fine purple silk wrapping itself within, weaving itself a palace, constituting its praise, availing all.

With this beginning, the unknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called אלהים (Elohim), God. The secret is: בראשית ברא אלהים (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, ____ created God. (Genesis 1:1).

זֹהַר (Zohar), Radiance! From here all commands were created through the mysterious expansion of this point of concealed radiance. It created is written here, no wonder it written: God created the human being in His image (Genesis 1:27).

זֹהַר (Zohar), Radiance! Mystery! בראשית (Be-reshit), In the beginning, first of all. אהיה (Ehyeh), I will be, a sacred name engraved in its sides, אלהים (Elohim), God, engraved in the crown. אשר (Asher), Who - a hidden, treasured palace, beginning of the mystery of ראשית (reshit). אשר (Asher)- ראש (rosh), head, emerging from ראשית (reshit). When afterward point and palace were arrayed as on, then בראשית (Be-reshit) comprised supernal ראשית (reshit) in wisdom. Afterwards the color of the palace transformed and it was called בית (bayit), house, while the supernal point was called ראש (rosh), merging in one another in the mystery of בראשית (Be-reshit), when all was one in one entirety, before the house was inhabited.

After reading the actual text of the Zohar, I can't help but question Owen's interpretation. In particular, the ב of בראשית seems to be central to the Zohar's Kabbalistic interpretation of Genesis 1:1 in contrast to Joseph Smith's translation. While ראש (rosh) is translated as head as with Joseph Smith translation, the context and understanding of this term is profoundly different. Finally, Owen's reference to אלהים (Elohim) is contained much later in the text.

After reading the Zohar I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that it was extremely unlikely that Joseph Smith would have drawn his translation from the Zohar's text. More importantly, however, was the fact that Joseph Smith's ideas about Beth and the plurality of Gods was extant in the 1830s when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Abraham. In other words, despite the fact that I would love for Joseph Smith to have read the Zohar, it was clear to me from the data that these ideas did not originate in his having read the Zohar since they appear in Joseph Smith's theological works long before Alexander Neibaur arrived in Nauvoo.

While I love the idea that Joseph Smith was actively reading the Zohar and relying on it to reinterpret Genesis, I just don't think Owen's thesis is well supported. In addition, Owen's interpretation of the Mormon-Masonic connections are equally problematic. His conclusions rely too heavily on Masonic texts which would have been uncommon in New York during this period, or worse yet, texts which post date Smith by decades. While there are some good things in his analysis, extreme skepticism should be taken when weighing the accuracy of his interpretations. Does this address your comment Orangganjil?

George, thanks for your insight and I appreciate that you have studied this topic, which is rare indeed.

While I agree with a lot of your assessment, I'd probably add a few comments.

There is a good deal of evidence that Neibaur had not only Kabbalistic texts, but also was familiar with their meanings. He may have provided additional insight that Joseph used.

While there are aspects of Kabbalistic teachings in Joseph's earlier teachings, one might chalk those up to familiarity with Freemasonry as well, since there are significant overlaps between Freemasonry and Kabbalah. However, it seems to me that Joseph's Nauvoo era teachings become more esoteric and influenced by both Masonry and Kabbalah. I'm not saying that he deliberately ripped them off, but I see a lot of evidence for - how to say it? - the spark of inspiration being provided by those frameworks. Certainly there was more direct influence from Masonry, but Kabbalah (IMO) influenced Masonry, so that bleeds through as well.

orangganjil wrote:There is a good deal of evidence that Neibaur had not only Kabbalistic texts, but also was familiar with their meanings. He may have provided additional insight that Joseph used.

Let's examine the data in support of conclusion which was, in effect, put forth by Lance Owens. Before we do that, however, let look at what we know about Neibaur. The historical record is always a little sketchy, however, comparatively speaking, we have a relatively decent amount of information on him. We know that he was born a Jew and his father wanted him to become a rabbi. However, he instead studied medicine and became a dentist. Neibaur would later convert to Christianity and move to Preston England where he would marry his wife whose family were members of the Church of England. It was in Preston England that he met Brigham Young and the Mormon missionaries and converted to Mormonism based on dreams he had prior to meeting the missionaries (more on this later).

After becoming a Mormon, Neibaur and his wife moved to Nauvoo where Alexander opened a dental practice while supplementing his income by through other work. We have his personal journal which began after he became a Mormon and, from what I have gathered, his main focus was on his dentistry practice. He seems to have been a devout Mormon. So why does Lance Owens think that he was a Kabbalistic teacher for Joseph Smith?

There are really two lines of evidence that lead Owens to this conclusions. (1) Neibaur was a Jew who could read Hebrew and who may have studied for a brief period of time to become a rabbi. (2) Neibaur published an article in the Times and Seasons newspaper which was published in two parts on July 1st and 15th of 1843. Let's examine each of these in turn.

Neibaur may have been studying to be a Rabbi but that does not necessarily mean that he studied the Kabbalah. While Kabbalistic studies would have been common in the late 1600s and early 1700s for rabbis, by the 1800s the study of Kabbalah in Judaism had fallen out of favor for two reasons. First, the study of Kabbalah had been tightly linked to subversive Jewish political and eschatological leaders whose leaders had declared themselves the Jewish Messiah. As a result, sects of Judaism associated with Kabbalistic studies had caused immense problems for Judaism in the late 1600s. As a result of this many of the Jews are branded Kabbalah as problematic, not to mention highly non-rational, and had removed it from study. As such, even if Neibaur had received rabbinic study enough to have become a serious student of Kabbalah, it is equally probable, if not more probable, that he would not have received a substantive exposure to Kabbalah in the course of his studies. Thus the first live of evidence for Owen's conclusion is tentative at best.

Owen's second line of evidence is a newspaper article written in two parts in the Mormon newspaper the Times and Seasons. If you have not read this two part article then I highly suggest you do so to weigh the evidence yourself. It is a strange article to say the least. The Times and Seasons regularly published a column entitled "The Jews" which features information related to the Jewish people the religion of Judaism. It is in this column that Neibaur's contribution appears. Neibaur's article is about the the afterlife in Jewish thought. The article starts out with a short comment by the editor, and very brief introduction, and the bulk of the text is simply quotes from various rabbinical about thoughts about the afterlife. The article quotes over 20 rabbinic sources with little to no transition between quotes.

Owen was intrigued by this article because many of the sources come from Kabbalistic sources including the Zohar. Because of this data Owen suggests that Neibaur had an extensive Kabbalistic library and that he had a deep reservoir of Kabbalistic which he could have shared with Joseph. While this is a possible interpretation, it is not the only most likely in my opinion. When I read the article I was immediately struck by the fact that the Neibaur provide little to no commentary on the quotes he uses. In fact, the article has the distinct cadence of an article which is simply copying quotes from a secondary source. When I first read the article my first impression was that Neibaur was copying quotes from another author's text in order, a common and practice in both newspaper and even academic writing in the 1800s. When I did a quick Google books search, however, no matches came up.

When I returned to the text I noticed another strange phenomenon in the text, the wording of the quotes was disjointed. The nature of the quotes in fact makes it sound like Neibaur is actually translating the quotes from another language - most likely from Hebrew. If this was the case then a Google search would not have revealed any matches. It was at this point that I returned to Hamblin's critique. In fact, in his research had identified a probable source text for Neibaur's entire article - the Sefer Nishmat Hayyim by Manasseh be Israel. This is a treatise in Hebrew by Manasseh ben Israel in 1651 about the subject of the afterlife in rabbinic lore.

When I read the article in the Times and Seasons the depth and breadth of sources quoted suggested it had been written by a theologian steeped in rabbinic tradition. This was NOT an article that was likely produced by a dentist who had learned to read Hebrew in his youth and had received a year or two of rabbinic training. There have been a number of academic articles on Manasseh ben Israel and the contents of the article fit his interests. In other words, Neibaur is not a Kabbalistic scholar, but instead probably has a copy of Sefer Nishmat Hayyim in Hebrew from which he is taking quotes and translating them into English.

Even if this is the most likely case, however, it does mean that Neibaur did have access to some Kabbalistic lore. So what does it look like? Sadly, my Hebrew is not good enough to read the Sefer Nishmat Hayyim in it's original Hebrew. If I could, we could perhaps verify if this is actually the case. However, we do have academic articles written about Manasseh ben Isreal and his writing which we can consult. One academic author has commented on Manasseh ben Isreal's use of Kabbalistic sources and noted the following about his treatment of Kabbalistic material.

While he does quote from Kabbalistic material extensively, the quotes seem to be specifically filters for his audience. (1) While Nishmat Hayyim talks extensively about evil spirits, the Kabbalistic concept of Sitra Ahra (the dark roots of the Tree of Life) is completely absent from Nishmat Hayyim. (2) Nishmat Hayyim is devoid of discussions of the eschatological Messianic imagery in the Zohar. (3) The divine male and female elements of the divine that are part and parcel to Kabbalistic interpretation of Biblical verses in the Zohar are completely absent from Nishmat Hayyim. (4) The concept of the ten sephirot which is the key interpretative framework of Kabbalah is completely absent in Nishmat Hayyim. (Joseph Dan, Manasseh Ben Isreal: Attitude Towards the Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah)

In other words, if Neibaur had Manasseh ben Isreal's book Nishmat Hayyim, then it would not have been a detailed source of information about Kabbalah. Thus I don't think there is strong evidence that Neibaur had a library of Kabbalistic texts nor that he was deeply familiar Kabbalah.

orangganjil wrote:While there are aspects of Kabbalistic teachings in Joseph's earlier teachings, one might chalk those up to familiarity with Freemasonry as well, since there are significant overlaps between Freemasonry and Kabbalah. However, it seems to me that Joseph's Nauvoo era teachings become more esoteric and influenced by both Masonry and Kabbalah. I'm not saying that he deliberately ripped them off, but I see a lot of evidence for - how to say it? - the spark of inspiration being provided by those frameworks. Certainly there was more direct influence from Masonry, but Kabbalah (IMO) influenced Masonry, so that bleeds through as well.

Just to make it clear, I do think that there are authentic and real direct connections between Kabbalah and Joseph Smith. However, let's talk about the supposed Kabbalistic-Masonic link. It would have been unlikely for Joseph Smith to have gleaned a Kabbalistic way of thinking from Freemasonry. However, if a Mason is familiar with Kabbalah, then it would be common for that Mason to have interpreted Freemasonry through a Kabbalistic lens. Did Joseph Smith view things through a Kabbalistic lens- Absolutely!!!!! But it wasn't Neibaur that fashioned Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens, it was Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa that helped shape Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens.

George Miller wrote: But it wasn't Neibaur that fashioned Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens, it was Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa that helped shape Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens.

(the orchestra plays an ominous minor chord)

George Miller wrote: Just to make it clear, I do think that there are authentic and real direct connections between Kabbalah and Joseph Smith. However, let's talk about the supposed Kabbalistic-Masonic link. It would have been unlikely for Joseph Smith to have gleaned a Kabbalistic way of thinking from Freemasonry. However, if a Mason is familiar with Kabbalah, then it would be common for that Mason to have interpreted Freemasonry through a Kabbalistic lens. Did Joseph Smith view things through a Kabbalistic lens- Absolutely!!!!! But it wasn't Neibaur that fashioned Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens, it was Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa that helped shape Joseph Smith's Kabbalistic lens.

George, I do not intend to assert that Joseph's theology is derived directly from Kabbalah (though there may be some possibility), rather I agree with you that, through Freemasonry, he was exposed to ideas that correlate to Kabbalah due to the influence of Kabbalah on Masonry. I hope that makes sense.

OK, I'm turning on the George Miller light.

Hagoth wrote:OK, I'm turning on the George Miller light.

GMLight.jpg

This is hilarious and perfect!! Love it