In the opening verses of the Book of Mormon, Nephi gives an
intriguing four-fold reference:
- I make a record of my proceedings in my days
- I make a record in the language of my father
- I make it with mine own hand
- I make it according to my knowledge
These descriptions of Nephi’s record are reminiscent of the
Kabbalistic “Four Worlds,” exhibited in Isaiah 43:7, "Every one that is
called by My name and for My glory (atziluth
"emanation/nearness"), I have created (beriah "creation"), I have formed (yetzirah "formation"), even I have made (asiyah "action"). This
describes the creative power of God, which descends through the four
Kabbalistic worlds. As well as the functional role each World has in the
process of Creation, they also embody dimensions of consciousness within human
experience.
Let us compare each step in the process of creation in
ascending order, the order it is found in Nephi. The lowest and final step in
the Kabbalistic process of creation is temporal, concrete and specific. This
realm is that of effects, the causes remaining hidden in the mind of God. It is
associated with the Hebrew word asiyah,
human action or endeavor in the manifest world. In Isaiah 43 it is translated
“I have made.” Nephi has made a record of his proceedings, or the actions which
have taken place in his days.
The next of the “Four Worlds” is that of formation. Using
language, God “spoke” the world into existence. Nephi’s record was formulated in
the language of his father, consisting of the learning of the Jews and the
language of the Egyptians. To the Kabbalists, the yetzirah world is half good and half evil. Likewise, the language Nephi
uses is a dual one, the Jewish representing holiness and revelation, and the Egyptian
representing worldliness. Hieroglyphics were understood to have been developed
by Egyptian priests to conceal mysteries. The idea of concealing and revealing
is conveyed in the language used to form Nephi’s record.
Nephi’s engraving on gold plates emulates the yetziratic creation as well. In the fundamental
Kabbalistic text Sefer Yetzirah, God
not only speaks the universe into being, he engraves it, using the twenty-two
letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew word for engrave is chakak. Derived from this root are words
meaning “rule” and “decree.” Nephi’s record is a book of law, containing rules
and decrees of God, which properly govern human behavior. They are written on
plates of gold, symbolic of divine perfection.
The world of beriah
can be described as God extending his hand through the veil in his first
creative act. It is the disclosure of absolute Truth through revelation. Nephi claims
that direct encounter, beginning with a testimony that it is “true,” and that
he records it with his own hand. In Kabbalah, the hand alludes to God’s divine
power and spirit. When Nephi says that he is writing with his hand, Kabbalists
might understand it to mean he is writing with the Holy Spirit, by the gift and
power of God.
Atziluth is the transcendent
world of pure divinity, beyond word, speech, or form. When Nephi says that he
is making the record according to his “knowledge,” this is gnostic, or secret
knowledge, the hidden wisdom of God. It is the work of a Kabbalist to discover the
innate holy nature of our earthly existence by entering into the pavilion of
God’s hiding place at divine invitation.
Nephi’s placement of the four “I Make” statements in
ascending order indicates celestial ascent. As initiates ascend the tree of
life, they move from immanence to transcendence. This is the path of return. As
Nephi wrote, he experienced the process, beginning by describing temporal
events, progressing through recognizing truth and experiencing the Holy Ghost,
and culminating in personal and intimate knowledge of the Divine. A reader of
Nephi’s record is invited to participate in the same process of purification
and renewing of the mind that Kabbalists aspire to, through their ascending
stages of consciousness.
Like the Book of Mormon itself, this four-step composition
by Nephi is written to be plain and easily understood. But each phrase contains
a latent mystery, giving the account a complex and rich potential. Applying a
Kabbalistic hermeneutic to 1 Nephi significantly broadens its theological
implications.
I, too, am surprised that Sam’s discussion of Masonry in his Chapter 7, “Negotiating Death and Afterlife in Nauvoo” contains very little about Masonic influences in funerary practice in Nauvoo. Don Carlos Smith’s funeral is indeed indicative of this. A more contemporary reference is Eliza R. Snow’s poem “Death of General Don Carlos Smith,” published 8 days after the funeral. This poem contains at least 3 specific Masonic references that I can pick up (not being a Mason). I think it is valid to say that excluding Nauvoo funerary practice and its relationship with Masonry is a serious oversight in such a chapter.
We shall meet upon the Level when the Gates of Death are past;
We shall stand before the Orient and our Master will be there,
To try the blocks we offer with His own unerring square.
We shall meet upon the Level there, but never thence depart,
There’s a Mansion, tis all ready for each trusting, faithful heart,
There’s a Mansion and a welcome and a multitude is there;
Who have met upon the Level and been tried upon the Square.
***
Hands round! Ye faithful brotherhood, the bright fraternal chain,
We part upon the Square below and meet in Heaven again;
And the words of precious meaning, those words Masonic are:
“We meet upon the Level and we part upon the Square.”
Joe Steve Swick III
As the facilitator of this blog post, and the writer of Joe’s biographical details, I’m just wondering–where exactly are these “scholarly credentials” professed?
My own experience has been that such participation is often not welcome. It is especially not welcome by those who would like to view themselves as more informed on Freemasonry than even the Freemasons. I’ve seen established Masonic writers and scholars provide sound citations in support of their views, only to be ridiculed and dismissed by non-Mason critics who believe they know better. This kind of dismissiveness is unfortunately common among some Latter-day Saints. For them, the starting-point in any discussion of Masonry is: “We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.”[i]
Joe Steve Swick III
Joe Steve Swick III
“several significant problems…”
“Almost unbelievably, Sam fails to anywhere …”
“He fails to breathe even a word of recognition…”
“I was most astonished …”
“Sam is unwilling to directly state …”
“Similarly, Sam fails to mention …”
“I wish to stress that these are not minor errors”
“(of which there are, unfortunately, not a few in his book).”
” Rather, these issues suggest a fundamental lack of appreciation…”
“Numerous other similar objections to equally troubling factual and interpretive errors could be raised…”
“a particularly egregious oversight…”
“misreading and mishandling…”
“even where his arguments may otherwise have merit, it is difficult for me to have confidence…”
“fails to even mention big ticket items which have direct bearing on his thesis. That is far less forgivable…”
“fails to get even simple facts right…”
“misstating facts and failing to understand what one DOES include is another…”
Joe Steve Swick III
The question this raises for me, and I don’t see myself as a historian so I can’t really answer this, is how good of a historian is Sam? Is the material he does not include a choice he makes or an oversight he makes? I’m prone to defend him because I like him personally, but I don’t have the background on this to defend him intellectually.
——
[1] Or of equal significance because of its shared history, the Five Points of Fellowship — that most potent of Masonic symbols of the Conquest of Death and simultaneously of Fraternal Union. For Masons, the words “to be raised from a dead level to a living perpendicular” are sometimes applied to this symbol. And, a Mason may sometimes hear the subtle and sweet double entendre, that in his raising he is “to be reunited with the former companions of his toils.”
Joe Steve Swick III
Joe Steve Swick III
Also, their tendency of divorce Mormon Church from its Freemasonry and/or mystic, esoteric , occult roots may cause a huge disappointment on Church members when they start learning more of the “other side” from that side. Some years ago, in the university, I had to make a report about Freemasonry and its influence on Chile independence. Visiting their main library here in Chile I was very impressed with their handshake. It was the very First Aaronic Priesthood token!! and it was a shock for me because of that tendency of divorce and lack of information. Instantly it came to my mind I met “true messengers” or true messengers are the wisdom inside Freemasonry (I did not thought on people, we are imperfect/sinners, but on wisdom/teachings). They are not a religion, therefore, made more sense for me thinking on them (their teachings) as true messengers because it was Lucifer who talked of religion to Adam and Eve in the Mormon mythology but it is not explicitly stated about Peter, James and John (they just gave true wisdom to Adam and Eve).
I think Church scholars can find other ways in order to integrate Church real history and old teachings with current ones. I am glad when reading books written by Hugh Nibley and his scholarly and mystic flavor. His books are a beautiful bridge between Kabbalah, Sacred Geometry (and many other mystical things) and the Church current beliefs. In my opinion, this makes a solid ground for church members, their encounters with mystical teachings or old Church teachings are softened and instead of think about leave the Church they start thinking on learn more, integrate wisdom from different sources and keep faithful to the Church. Of course there are others like me that leave the Church anyway but, at least, I am friendly to it (my old bishop read about old Church teachings like Adam God and because of misinformation he hates the Church now, he feel like the Church cheated him).
Joe, as I’ve said before I look forward to your book. I was disappointed to hear you’d stopped working on it for a while and quite excited to hear you were continuing on it after the other book on Masonry and Mormonism died on the vine.
Joe Steve Swick III
Joe Steve Swick III
“To be honest, a lot of people here are friends of Sam’s, and they’re going to go into fight mode out of sheer loyalty.”
I believe that I understand enough about the writing of history in general — and the rules of logic in particular — to be able to identify in my own area of personal knowledge / expertise: 1) when an argument is supported by the facts in evidence and when it is not; and, 2) when an argument is made that does not take into account evidence that may modify that argument, or is made without fully considering relevant primary source documentation.
Joe Steve Swick
Clyde Forsberg says: After reading this, I’m so very glad not to have any ties to Masonry and to have cut all ties to Mormonism in the mid-1980s. What a peevish, churlish, and pedantic thread you spin….
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=566
Funny that he’s trolling blog discussions on the subject all these years later!
Joe Swick