Interesting Annointing Ceremony described by Cyril of Jerusalem

[lostindc]

(Wiping my eyes)

That was a good one, Mikey!

So now that you've completed two important tasks: (1) reminding everyone at least twice that you are working on an M.A. thesis, and (2) actually getting some work done on it (ranking these in order of importance,) how about you produce just one single solitary contemporary source that can place the "Jupiter talisman" in Joseph's hands?

Just one will do for the purposes of this thread.

Thanks.

Regards,

Pahoran

Mike thinks a Masters or even a PhD means anything nowadays

[Mike Reed]

Do you have any evidence to the contrary besides him trying to be nice in a passing public statement?

Do you have reason to believe that Bushman was just trying to be nice? Have you listened to the interview? It seems to me that Bushman was trying to be as accurate and ballanced as possible. Here is a transcription of this portion of the interview:

John Dehlin: How much of this understanding about magic do we owe to Michael Quinn, do you think? Or is he just one of many? Should we sort of thank him for the research that he did, to help us to really understand it better?

Richard Bushman: Well... The basic research was done before Michael Quinn by scholars of European culture and American culture. Keith Thomas' "Religion and the Decline of Magic" is the key turning book, and then other books about the hermetic tradition and the renaissance, and Michael built on that. I suppose maybe many Latter-day Saints learned nothing about magic until they came to Michael. The trouble is that his book, it doesn't really put things in balance. What it does is that it just piles it higher and deeper. He gets this huge material, collects it all, and assumes that this vast quantity of lore that developed during the centuries was in the minds of everyone who ever went out and searched for buried treasure. So it kind of leads you astray at the same time that it opens up a new world to you. So, I think it a fabulous work of scholarship. Ingenious I must say. But, I mean <starts to chuckle slightly> it is really overblown in so many ways.

Mormon Stories podcast, third part of Bushman interview series. 58:47-1:00:25.

Do you agree with Bushman's answer? I do.

[Mike Reed]

(Wiping my eyes)

That was a good one, Mikey!

So now that you've completed two important tasks: (1) reminding everyone at least twice that you are working on an M.A. thesis, and (2) actually getting some work done on it (ranking these in order of importance,) how about you produce just one single solitary contemporary source that can place the "Jupiter talisman" in Joseph's hands?

Just one will do for the purposes of this thread.

Thanks.

Regards,

Pahoran

You are jousting windmills again, Don Quixote. Read more carefully. Notice that I never said that Joseph Smith personally owned the talisman. The talisman, as well as other occult artifacts, have come through separate Smith family lines of inheritance. The talisman marks one of those lines. So that being said... whether or not Joseph Smith himself owned the talisman (which I believe the evidence leans toward the possibility that he did) or someone else in his family, is beside the point. The question is, what was Joseph Smith's environment? Did Joseph Smith have access to occult ideas? There is no doubt in my mind that he did, and the fact that several occult artifacts (like perhaps the talisman) traveled through separate lines of inheritance (as well as other evidence) confirms this. Is there doubt in your mind that he did? Or are you among those people whom Bushman thinks need to "get over" their sensitivity about magic in the history of the Smith family?

In case you'd like to know why I believe that evidence weighs in favor of the possibility (note the word "possibility," as I fully concede that the issue has yet to be settled definitively) that Joseph Smith owned the talisman, I provide an explanation below. But again... keep in mind that I am open to counter evidence. If you can provide any, I'd be much obliged.

--------

Mormon apologists argue that although Smith practiced the occult arts in his early years, he increasingly turned away from such practices as he matured. But this conclusion is challenged by the Jupiter talisman artifact, and second-hand report that Joseph Smith was wearing it on the day that he was killed.

In 1937 the stepson of Emma Smith (the founding Prophetâ??s first wife), Charles Bidamon, offered heirlooms for sale that he had inherited from the Smith family. Among the several items listed for sale was a Jupiter talisman, described as â??a silver pocket piece which was in the Prophetâ??s pocket at the time of his assassination.â? When Wilford Wood (a Mormon memorabilia collector) had purchased the talisman, Bidamon certified the artifact, reporting that Emma Smith had â??prized this piece very highly on account of its being one of the Prophetâ??s intimate possession.â?

This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith's widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill.

Mormon apologists have rejected Bidamonâ??s report, on grounds that the talisman was not listed in an itemized receipt (written by Joseph Smithâ??s lawyer) of possessions collected from Smithâ??s body after he was killed. The itemization reads as follows:

Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. - Emma Smith.

Critics respond by pointing out that other things possessed by Smith at the time of his death, such as his gun, hat, and coat, were not on the list either, and the list must therefore be incomplete; but this argument has hardly persuaded apologists, since Smith would have likely left the coat, hat, and gun behind (and consequently would not be on his person) when jumping out the jail window as he was being attacked.

The conclusion held by Latter-day Saints ultimately calls into question the integrity and/or memory of Bidamon. Did he lie for the sake of a sales pitch? â??One might wonder what is sales talk and what is history,â? says Mormon historian Richard L. Anderson. But on the other hand, one might also wonder, if the artifact is fraudulent, then what of all the other items that Bidamon was selling at the time? Had there been other authentically questionable items sold by Bidamon, this could add strength to the position held by apologists; but there arenâ??t any. On the contrary, all the other artifacts are (without controversy) believed to be authentic, while the talisman is singled out.

Another way that apologists have attempted to discredit Bidamonâ??s report is to point out that Bidamon gave it several years after the death of Emma Smith. Richard L. Anderson argues, â??Charles Bidamon was fifteen when Emma died and made the above statement fifty-eight years later. Since there are many shifts of memory association, it is possible that Emma really said that Joseph prized the coin when they first met in Pennsylvania [before he established the Church].â?

If Bidamon mixed up the details of Emmaâ??s report, this could explain its inconsistency with the lawyerâ??s itemization, without unnecessarily calling into question Bidamonâ??s integrity. No doubt the greater the time period (and the younger Bidamon's age was at the time), the greater the likelihood that details will evolve in the mind. However, in consideration of the fact that the talisman had a hole in it for wearing it strung around the neck, it seems more likely that Bidamonâ??s inaccuracy would exist in regards to where Smith had it on his personâ??a detail of less emotional significance, compared to a detail about him possessing it at the time of his death. Rather than being in his pocket, if Smith instead had it hanging around his neck (as it was apparently designed to be worn) then this would explain why Smithâ??s lawyer didnâ??t collect and list it in his itemized receipt. The talisman could have easily gone unnoticed had it been worn underneath Smithâ??s clothing touching the skin. Just as Smith and the early saints believed that their sacred under-garments must touch the skin in order to have its greatest power of protection, it is quite possible that Smith would have believed the talisman should too.

Perhaps the most compelling piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that Smith had the talisman with him at the time of his death, however, is how fitting it was to that particular time in his life. No other astrological talisman would have been more appropriate. As noted by Historian Reed C. Durham: â??[it] was the most appropriate talisman for Joseph Smith to possess. Indeed, it seemed meant for him, because on all levels of interpretation: planetary, mythological, numerological, astrological, mystical cabalism, and talismatic magic, the Prophet was, in every case appropriately described.â?

[Mike Reed]

Mike thinks a Masters or even a PhD means anything nowadays

Ah yes. It means absolutely nothing.

And worldly knowledge is of the devil, which is why you make a concerted effort to steer far far away from it. You don't want to pollute that brilliant mind of yours.

<chuckle>

Your remark might hurt my feelings if you were among the more informed TBM participants at MADb. But you aren't.

I'm just sayin'...

[Mike Reed]

OK, then do you believe it is possible that JS received authentic revelation in which ancient truths were revealed?

Sure it is possible. Is it probable? I don't think so. If God did, then it would seem that he did so without leaving any distinguishable fingerprints. My experience has been this: The more I look at Joseph Smith's purported "revelations," and the more I research Joseph Smith's environment, the more "this-worldly" Mormonism appears to be. I still have much to study, no doubt... so maybe I will change my mind about Joseph Smith in the near future, but I wouldn't count on it. The odds (from my view) seem to be against such a possibility. Therefore, I have no reason to jumper to supernatural conclusions.

[Mike Reed]

Cut the posturing. Do you, or do you not reject supernatural explanations for JS?

Againâ?¦ I am not posturing. For the moment, based on where the scales of probability are tilting for me, yes. I would say that I reject them. Who knows... I may change my mind in the near future. But I wouldn't count on it.

A real agnostic would accept the possibility of the divine origins of JS's revelations as well as the possibilities of a 19C origin. A real agnostic would saw not only that we do not know how JS produced the BOM, but that we cannot know.

I disagree that this is what a "true agnostic" would believe. There are all sorts of agnostics. If I were to define the type of agnostic that I am, I would say that I am a combination of an empirical and pragmatic agnostic, with swings between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism (depending on the day).

[Mike Reed]

Skepticism and agnosticism are not synonymous.

Did I say that they were synonymous?

[lostindc]

Ah yes. It means absolutely nothing.

And worldly knowledge is of the devil, which is why you make a concerted effort to steer far far away from it. You don't want to pollute that brilliant mind of yours.

<chuckle>

Your remark might hurt my feelings if you were among the more informed TBM participants at MADb. But you aren't.

I'm just sayin'...

Perhaps, if you paid attention, which you do not, you would realize that a nice portion of us TBMs have gone very far in what you call worldly knowledge, receiving "high degrees" but you see we are less impressed by a piece of paper than you are....

[mfbukowski]

If you read John 6 The Bread of Life Discourse when Jesus said Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man you have no life in you. When Jesus said these words what happened? His desciples, the Jewish audience was scandalized and they left Him. Jesus never called them back.Instead He asked His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too. If Jesus was talking symbolically about His real presence in the Eucharist He would have called them back to explain. Hey guys come on back I was only kidding. Instead for the 3rd time He said unless you eat "TORGO" Greek verb=to eat or gnaw on flesh, For my flesh is food enough and my blood is drink enough.

You and I have a history on this issue, and now you pursue me to this forum. This thread is about other topics. I suggest you start a new thread here on this so that you can have the perspective of many members of the LDS church. But this thread is not the place to discuss it. I probably should not have made that comment about the eucharist in the first place here -- it is just that it appeared in the information posted about Cyril.

I suggest you start a new thread maybe with the Cyril info I posted to discuss Cyril's position -- something like "Did Cyril of Jerusalem believe in the real presence?". I would participate in that, and you might get a few more bites -- or make it more general like "ECF's and the real presence"-- something like that.

But you will have to mind your p's and q's here -- this is a pretty tight group and a few levels higher than the board where we met. (Not that that is saying much!)

[mfbukowski]

I never denied the possibility of migration paths.

My discussion was about similarities between the anointings and only peripherally about whether there were possible migration paths

Finding a possible migration path is not a problem. Finding a path that is both similar (including multiple body part anointings and theological similarity) is a much bigger problem. Proving that Joseph was not inspired is a major problem. You say that you are agnostic, and are aware that you can't prove that Joseph was not inspired.

But the central point of my post was that your entire argument was irrelevant because it sought to show a possible "migration path" which I was already willing to concede existed in the biblical references, and that such an argument is irrelevant for TBMs. That is the major point here. We can argue all day about migration paths, but TBM's seem to be unfazed by this because of their familiarity with the quote from Exodus.

There is no problem at all. As has already been explained to you, both Catholicism and Freemasonry anointed separate body parts. And information about both of these rituals were available to Joseph Smith.

I disagree that it was irrelevant. If you were not asserting the extreme unlikelihood of other migration paths, then explain the quote I give above (smiley winks and all).

Well we can argue "Yes I did" "No I didn't" all day long like little kids. I think I am right, you think you are right.

What is important I think is that you did not respond to my post above. As I said there, possible migration paths are not the issue to me really. I think you have not shown that Joseph did in fact have access to what you allege he possibly could have had access to.

I think anything more than a cursory acquaintance or understanding of the endowment will show that theologically there is no similarity between the masonic practices and ours. But of course we do not want to get into that.

Repeating now for the third time, "my central point" regarding Exodus 40

But the central point of my post was that your entire argument was irrelevant because it sought to show a possible "migration path" which I was already willing to concede existed in the biblical references, and that such an argument is irrelevant for TBMs. That is the major point here. We can argue all day about migration paths, but TBM's seem to be unfazed by this because of their familiarity with the quote from Exodus.

The point is the whole possible migration path "problem" doesn't exist, because the church itself brings up that possiblity with it's emphasis on the Exodus 40 passage. We could just say "Oh Joseph invented it all from Exodus 40", but we don't.

So saying that he invented it from other sources -- which other sources as I maintain above cannot even be proven to be the "original sources"-- becomes irrelevant.

Another issue you do not address is the the "original source" of the various "apostate" (pardon the TBM terminology) annointings we both cite, including the masonic and the Coptic and the Catholic and the folk magic and who knows how many others.

Could there not in fact be a "common ancestor" to all of these? That of course is a major issue as I see it. What do we know of the "common ancestor" and where is it? I of course have my answer.

[Mike Reed]

Perhaps, if you paid attention, which you do not, you would realize that a nice portion of us TBMs have gone very far in what you call worldly knowledge, receiving "high degrees"

{chuckle} What makes you think I am oblivious to the existence of educated Latter-day Saints with degrees? Just because I don't consider you to be one does not mean that I assume none exist in the church.

but you see we are less impressed by a piece of paper than you are....

Ah yes. I have spent thousands of dollars in tuition fees and reading material, and countless hours in study, just so I can get a fancy piece of paper. And you have figured out how impressed I am by such a piece of paper, because I mentioned in passing that I am working on my thesis. Brilliant!

[Pahoran]

You are jousting windmills again, Don Quixote. Read more carefully. Notice that I never said that Joseph Smith personally owned the talisman. The talisman, as well as other occult artifacts, have come through separate Smith family lines of inheritance. The talisman marks one of those lines.

No Mike, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Joseph personally owned the talisman, or there is no connection between it and anyone else in the Smith family. No Joseph==no Smith family connection. At all.

And you know that perfectly well, don't you?

So in answer to my question:

"how about you produce just one single solitary contemporary source that can place the 'Jupiter talisman' in Joseph's hands?"

A simple "no" would suffice.

That's all it would take. One word instead of a screed.

Planning to go into politics, are we?

So that being said... whether or not Joseph Smith himself owned the talisman (which I believe the evidence leans toward the possibility that he did) or someone else in his family, is beside the point.

He ducks; he weaves!

The question is, what was Joseph Smith's environment? Did Joseph Smith have access to occult ideas? There is no doubt in my mind that he did, and the fact that several occult artifacts (like perhaps the talisman) traveled through separate lines of inheritance (as well as other evidence) confirms this.

But is it a fact? It seems to be disputed, doesn't it?

Is there doubt in your mind that he did? Or are you among those people whom Bushman thinks need to "get over" their sensitivity about magic in the history of the Smith family?

That's right, Mike. The only way anyone can possibly disagree with your wishful thinking is if there is something wrong with them.

You go right on believing that.

In case you'd like to know why I believe that evidence weighs in favor of the possibility (note the word "possibility," as I fully concede that the issue has yet to be settled definitively) that Joseph Smith owned the talisman, I provide an explanation below. But again... keep in mind that I am open to counter evidence. If you can provide any, I'd be much obliged.

--------

Mormon apologists argue that although Smith practiced the occult arts in his early years, he increasingly turned away from such practices as he matured. But this conclusion is challenged by the Jupiter talisman artifact, and second-hand report that Joseph Smith was wearing it on the day that he was killed.

Actually it's a third hand report. Emma didn't remove Joseph's possessions from his body, so if ever she did associate the talisman with the martyrdom, it was on the word of someone else. Someone anonymous, too.

In 1937 the stepson of Emma Smith (the founding Prophetâ??s first wife), Charles Bidamon, offered heirlooms for sale that he had inherited from the Smith family. Among the several items listed for sale was a Jupiter talisman, described as â??a silver pocket piece which was in the Prophetâ??s pocket at the time of his assassination.â? When Wilford Wood (a Mormon memorabilia collector) had purchased the talisman, Bidamon certified the artifact, reporting that Emma Smith had â??prized this piece very highly on account of its being one of the Prophetâ??s intimate possession.â?

While you no doubt find this comforting, for me it raises a big red flag. Bidamon is trying too hard. If you believe his story, I'm sure you'd love to buy the original penny that George Washington threw across the Potomac. Or do you think that would fetch just the same price as any other old penny?

Mormon apologists have rejected Bidamonâ??s report, on grounds that the talisman was not listed in an itemized receipt (written by Joseph Smithâ??s lawyer) of possessions collected from Smithâ??s body after he was killed. The itemization reads as follows:

Critics respond by pointing out that other things possessed by Smith at the time of his death, such as his gun, hat, and coat, were not on the list either, and the list must therefore be incomplete; but this argument has hardly persuaded apologists, since Smith would have likely left the coat, hat, and gun behind (and consequently would not be on his person) when jumping out the jail window as he was being attacked.

The conclusion held by Latter-day Saints ultimately calls into question the integrity and/or memory of Bidamon. Did he lie for the sake of a sales pitch? â??One might wonder what is sales talk and what is history,â? says Mormon historian Richard L. Anderson. But on the other hand, one might also wonder, if the artifact is fraudulent, then what of all the other items that Bidamon was selling at the time? Had there been other authentically questionable items sold by Bidamon, this could add strength to the position held by apologists; but there arenâ??t any. On the contrary, all the other artifacts are (without controversy) believed to be authentic, while the talisman is singled out.

Please note that this is merely an inverted ad hominem argument. Incidentally, have any of the other artefacts been closely examined or questioned?

Another way that apologists have attempted to discredit Bidamonâ??s report is to point out that Bidamon gave it several years after the death of Emma Smith. Richard L. Anderson argues, â??Charles Bidamon was fifteen when Emma died and made the above statement fifty-eight years later. Since there are many shifts of memory association, it is possible that Emma really said that Joseph prized the coin when they first met in Pennsylvania [before he established the Church].â?

If Bidamon mixed up the details of Emmaâ??s report, this could explain its inconsistency with the lawyerâ??s itemization, without unnecessarily calling into question Bidamonâ??s integrity. No doubt the greater the time period (and the younger Bidamon's age was at the time), the greater the likelihood that details will evolve in the mind. However, in consideration of the fact that the talisman had a hole in it for wearing it strung around the neck, it seems more likely that Bidamonâ??s inaccuracy would exist in regards to where Smith had it on his personâ??a detail of less emotional significance, compared to a detail about him possessing it at the time of his death. Rather than being in his pocket, if Smith instead had it hanging around his neck (as it was apparently designed to be worn) then this would explain why Smithâ??s lawyer didnâ??t collect and list it in his itemized receipt. The talisman could have easily gone unnoticed had it been worn underneath Smithâ??s clothing touching the skin. Just as Smith and the early saints believed that their sacred under-garments must touch the skin in order to have its greatest power of protection, it is quite possible that Smith would have believed the talisman should too.

Perhaps the most compelling piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that Smith had the talisman with him at the time of his death, however, is how fitting it was to that particular time in his life. No other astrological talisman would have been more appropriate. As noted by Historian Reed C. Durham: â??[it] was the most appropriate talisman for Joseph Smith to possess. Indeed, it seemed meant for him, because on all levels of interpretation: planetary, mythological, numerological, astrological, mystical cabalism, and talismatic magic, the Prophet was, in every case appropriately described.â?

And this passes as evidence in your mind?

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

But here's something else to chew on: Bidamon is coyly described as Emma's "stepson." If he was fifteen when she died in 1879, then he was born in 1864.

Emma married his father in 1847.

Emma was still very much alive and married to his father when he was born. But Emma was not his mother.

Has the penny--or the talisman--dropped yet?

Charles was clearly the illegitimate son of his father, via a liaison with some other woman. How close can he legitimately (pun not intended) claim to have been to Emma? Why should she confide her deepest thoughts and feelings to him?

Emma, who was never exactly comfortable about sharing her first husband with other women, even as a religious principle?

Charles Bidamon was the illegitimate son of an affair by the husband of a jealous wife. And yet you are offering him as the perfectly reliable hearsay "witness" to what was "treasured" by that same jealous wife--who, to say the least, had no particular reason to have any regard for him.

Give us a break.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

But here's something else to chew on: Bidamon is coyly described as Emma's "stepson." If he was fifteen when she died in 1879, then he was born in 1864.

Emma married his father in 1847.

Emma was still very much alive and married to his father when he was born. But Emma was not his mother.

Has the penny--or the talisman--dropped yet?

Charles was clearly the illegitimate son of his father, via a liaison with some other woman. How close can he legitimately (pun not intended) claim to have been to Emma? Why should she confide her deepest thoughts and feelings to him?

Emma, who was never exactly comfortable about sharing her first husband with other women, even as a religious principle?

Charles Bidamon was the illegitimate son of an affair by the husband of a jealous wife. And yet you are offering him as the perfectly reliable hearsay "witness" to what was "treasured" by that same jealous wife--who, to say the least, had no particular reason to have any regard for him.

Give us a break.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just to play Devil's Advocate- and Emma's- it should be noted, P, that when Emma discovered the affair (and the resulting child) she took Charles into her home, and according to most accounts raised him as her own- going so far as to hire his mother as a maid to ensure that the latter would stay in his life.

And "step-son" is the correct, legal term. Whatever the circumstances of his birth, Charles was the son of her husband- and therefore her stepson.

Every account with which I'm familiar describes Emma as a class act- and this episode is simply more fuel for the furnace.

To my limited mind, if there is a question regarding Bidamon's credibility, it lies in the passage of time, the contradictory evidence, and perhaps other motives- but not in his relationship to Emma.

[Mike Reed]

I think anything more than a cursory acquaintance or understanding of the endowment will show that theologically there is no similarity between the masonic practices and ours.

I have "more than a cursory acquaintance or understanding of the endowment," and I don't agree with you that there are no theological similarities. The restoration of man from his fallen state, by walking the thorny path, living virtuously, and advancing in light and knowledge... resurrection, the ascension to heavenly mansions... and even the suggestion that Adam's fall (contrary to Protestantism) wasn't all that tragic. Would these not qualify as theological similarities?

But of course we do not want to get into that.

Why not?

Repeating now for the third time, "my central point" regarding Exodus 40

The point is the whole possible migration path "problem" doesn't exist, because the church itself brings up that possiblity with it's emphasis on the Exodus 40 passage. We could just say "Oh Joseph invented it all from Exodus 40", but we don't.

Except, this passage does not explain the anointing of various body parts.

So saying that he invented it from other sources -- which other sources as I maintain above cannot even be proven to be the "original sources"-- becomes irrelevant.

I don't agree.

Another issue you do not address is the the "original source" of the various "apostate" (pardon the TBM terminology) annointings we both cite, including the masonic and the Coptic and the Catholic and the folk magic and who knows how many others. Could there not in fact be a "common ancestor" to all of these? That of course is a major issue as I see it. What do we know of the "common ancestor" and where is it? I of course have my answer.

Looking at a common ancestor is not a problem, as long as you are not unnecessarily leap-frogging the migration path, or changing its order. If the migration path traveled through freemasonry, folk magic, and/or Catholicism, it would be inappropriate to draw the pedigree chart by placing Mormonism and these other groups side by side as siblings or cousins. Siblings don't conceive their siblings. Neither do cousins conceive cousins.

[lostindc]

I have "more than a cursory acquaintance or understanding of the endowment," and I don't agree with you that there are no theological similarities. The restoration of man from his fallen state, by walking the thorny path, living virtuously, and advancing in light and knowledge... resurrection, the ascension to heavenly mansions... and even the suggestion that Adam's fall (contrary to Protestantism) wasn't all that tragic. Would these not qualify as theological similarities?

Why not?

Except, this passage does not explain the anointing of various body parts.

I don't agree.

Looking at a common ancestor is not a problem, as long as you are not unnecessarily leap-frogging the migration path, or changing its order. If the migration path traveled through freemasonry, folk magic, and/or Catholicism, it would be inappropriate to draw the pedigree chart by placing Mormonism and these other groups side by side as siblings or cousins. Siblings don't conceive their siblings. Neither do cousins conceive cousins.

I take it, Mike, that you are not a Mason, and probably not a Mormon at this point. It shows with your understanding of the Mormon endowment ceremony and the several different Mason ceremonies. As one who comes from a long line of Masons I know at this point you should stop posting because your almost Masters degree foot is so far down your throat that you are about to have it come out the other end. You sound ridiculous and you are arguing for the sake of arguing without a sound argument. Study some more and come back another day.

[Mike Reed]

I take it, Mike, that you are not a Mason, and probably not a Mormon at this point. It shows with your understanding of the Mormon endowment ceremony and the several different Mason ceremonies.

For example....?

As one who comes from a long line of Masons I know at this point you should stop posting because your almost Masters degree foot is so far down your throat that you are about to have it come out the other end.

What have I posted that is inaccurate?

You sound ridiculous and you are arguing for the sake of arguing without a sound argument. Study some more and come back another day.

Wow... that was quite an enlightening post you made there, Lost (fitting name, by the way).

Howboucha substantiate your claims, buddy? That would be a refreshing change. (chuckle)

I suspect this would be too much to ask of you, however.

Bummer.

[lostindc]

For example....?

What have I posted that is inaccurate?

Wow... that was quite an enlightening post you made there, Lost (fitting name, by the way).

Howboucha substantiate your claims, buddy? That would be a refreshing change. (chuckle)

I suspect this would be too much to ask of you, however.

Bummer.

Apparently, and as always, you seem to not understand that we LDS do not discuss sacred things such as the details of the endowment ceremony on this board. Additionally, to spend my time discussing issues in further detail with a person that thinks he is above another for receiving a lowly Masters degree is childish. To go even further, explaining something to you appears to be like explaining cheap sophistry (which we are witnessing here) to a bag of rocks. You have been schooled over and over again on this board. The fact that you keep coming back states that you are either:

1. Not that bright

2. Angry

3. Angry

4. Mike Reed (which in my interpretation means angry)

BTW, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Mason ceremonies or Mormonism. You sound silly and you are embarrassing yourself even further. Take the lumping that Hamblin gave you and go home.

"Look at me, I am working on a Masters thesis, I am so smart" - Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Apparently, and as always, you seem to not understand that we LDS do not discuss sacred things such as the details of the endowment ceremony on this board.

Discussing certain details have been allowed by the moderators. I could be wrong, but I don't think discussing theological aspects would be in conflict with the forum rules. Besides... there is another half of the discussion that can be freely discussed here: Freemasonry. What have I said about freemasonry in this thread that is inaccurate?

Additionally, to spend my time discussing issues in further detail with a person that thinks he is above another for receiving a lowly Masters degree is childish.

I don't think I am above you because I am a grad student.

To go even further, explaining something to you appears to be like explaining cheap sophistry (which we are witnessing here) to a bag of rocks.

How so? Don't worry about boring me with the details. I'd really like to know what (if anything) has led you to this conclusion.

You have been schooled over and over again on this board.

Why do you think that?

The fact that you keep coming back states that you are either:

1. Not that bright

2. Angry

3. Angry

4. Mike Reed (which in my interpretation means angry)

Unsubstantiated drivel once again. You are a class act, Lost. {chuckle}<---- evidence that I am not angry.

BTW, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Mason ceremonies or Mormonism.

Explain.

You sound silly and you are embarrassing yourself even further.

I don't feel embarrassed. Why should I?

Take the lumping that Hamblin gave you and go home.

Nah. I will stick around.

"Look at me, I am working on a Masters thesis, I am so smart" - Mike Reed

All this ranting and raving because I explained that I wouldn't be able to respond to Hamblin's posts right away because I had a thesis deadline I was meeting up against. Get over it, buddy. {chuckle}

[selek]

All this ranting and raving because I explained that I wouldn't be able to respond to Hamblin's posts right away because I had a thesis deadline I was meeting up against. Get over it, buddy. {chuckle}

Hmmmm..........a thesis deadline prevents you from responding to Herr Hamblin with any substance, but doesn't prevent you from blithering like a politician in front of a TV camera for an additional four pages.

So.

How does that work precisely?

[Mike Reed]

Hmmmm..........a thesis deadline prevents you from responding to Herr Hamblin with any substance, but doesn't prevent you from blithering like a politician in front of a TV camera for an additional four pages.

So.

How does that work precisely?

Ha!

It works like this: My second draft was submitted friday (the deadline I was talking about), and so...

I now have time to "blither" all I like.

[selek]

Ha! My second draft was submitted friday, and so I now have time to "blither" all I like.

Ah.

So you DO have time to respond substantively to Herr Hamblin.

We are waiting with baited breath.

Will it be a long wait? I hate the taste of catfish in my teeth.

[Mike Reed]

Ah.

So you DO have time to respond substantively to Herr Hamblin.

We are waiting with baited breath.

Will it be a long wait? I hate the taste of catfish in my teeth.

Which of Hamblin's posts still need to be addressed?

[Pahoran]

Just to play Devil's Advocate- and Emma's- it should be noted, P, that when Emma discovered the affair (and the resulting child) she took Charles into her home, and according to most accounts raised him as her own- going so far as to hire his mother as a maid to ensure that the latter would stay in his life.

And "step-son" is the correct, legal term. Whatever the circumstances of his birth, Charles was the son of her husband- and therefore her stepson.

Every account with which I'm familiar describes Emma as a class act- and this episode is simply more fuel for the furnace.

To my limited mind, if there is a question regarding Bidamon's credibility, it lies in the passage of time, the contradictory evidence, and perhaps other motives- but not in his relationship to Emma.

Which is nice. But if Joseph "treasured" the lump of tin, why didn't it go to one of his own children?

We all know people who bought or inherited houses and found "stuff" in boxes in the attic--stuff that the previous family clearly did not care about. It is apparent that the mementoes that Charles sold off to Wilford Wood fell into that category; possibly with one or two little "sweeteners" thrown in.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I have "more than a cursory acquaintance or understanding of the endowment," and I don't agree with you that there are no theological similarities. The restoration of man from his fallen state, by walking the thorny path, living virtuously, and advancing in light and knowledge... resurrection, the ascension to heavenly mansions... and even the suggestion that Adam's fall (contrary to Protestantism) wasn't all that tragic. Would these not qualify as theological similarities?

Well I will admit that what you describe as "theological similarities" have a LITTLE more theology in them than the Wizard of Oz, but not much. There are many parallels with the Wizard of Oz here too, but I don't think Joseph used that particular source. After all, they did receive new names and fall asleep in that poppy field and were "resurrected" into a heavenly city weren't they? Dorothy was literally "fallen" out of that tornado and walked the yellow brick road advancing to the heavenly city, and after all, the overall objective was to return "home" to her "parents" wasn't it?

No, the endowment is centered on the savior and becoming like him from beginning to end. Every statement and symbol points to him. We start in the pre-existence and end in the celestial kingdom and at every point the plan of salvation is evident. Not so with Masonry. The endowment is a recapitulation of every step we go through and is extraordinarily symbolically detailed. Every nuance has a meaning.

[Mike Reed]

Well I will admit that what you describe as "theological similarities" have a LITTLE more theology in them than the Wizard of Oz, but not much.

Oh please. These are central elements to the LDS endowment, and you know it.

Apostle John A. Widtsoe explained:

â??The endowment given to members of the Church in the temples falls into several divisions. First, there is a course of instruction relative to manâ??s eternal journey from the dim beginnings towards his possible glorious destiny. Then, conditions are set up by which that endless journey may be upward in direction. Those who receive this information covenant to obey the laws of eternal progress, and thereby give live to the knowledge received. Finally, it is made clear that a man must sometimes give an account of his deeds, and prove the possession of divine knowledge and religious works. It is a very beautiful, logical and inspiring series of ceremoniesâ? (A Rational Theology, seventh edition, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965, pages 125â??26).

Your dismissal of these parallels as insignificant is delusional, if not blatantly dishonest.

No, the endowment is centered on the savior and becoming like him from beginning to end. Every statement and symbol points to him. We start in the pre-existence and end in the celestial kingdom and at every point the plan of salvation is evident. Not so with Masonry. The endowment is a recapitulation of every step we go through and is extraordinarily symbolically detailed. Every nuance has a meaning.

And you don't think that some Christian Masons would have thought the same about some of the Masonic rituals? Have you read Salem Town's "A System of Speculative Masonry" (1820)???? It would probably be a good idea for you to read it (particularly chapter 9 titled "Ancient Masonry, Ancient Christianity") before you elaborate on this (false) assertion much further. You should be able to find copy online at googlebooks.com . I would also suggest reading Mark C. Carnes' "Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America" (Yale University Press, 1989). If you do, you will learn about several movements that happened during the 18th and 19th century. On one hand we have the rationalist movement led by Reverend R. Brown and Thomas Smith Webb, where references of Christ and the New Testament were stripped from Masonic ceremonies; but then on the other hand, after the death of Webb in 1818, this Rationalist movement was subverted by Masons like Salem Town (1820), and the Odd Fellows (with their "White degree" written in the 1820s), attempting to re-Christianize Freemasonry. Joseph Smith obviously sided with this second movement to re-Christianize Freemasonry.

So that being said, mfbukowski, I am afraid that you are making a distinction without a difference.