Temple Talk Guidelines

[Tarski]

Sorry to have to say this, Tarski, but you don't understand what I said, and you don't know anything about the academic study of ritual.

Try, for starters, reading R. Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, (2011), just out from Harvard.

PS. Lots of societies have religious rituals related to defection.

I understood exactly what you said. Perhaps the point lies in what you didn't say. I should think that a couple lines of clarification would be the better response rather than insisting that we must go read entire books in order to gain even a bit of insight as to why in the world the following was presented as being somehow profound:

I should note that newborn human infants have a few basic instinctive behaviors--crying sucking, (pooping, of course), grasping and being comforted by the mother's embrace. The handclasp and embrace are thus fundamental and primordial human instincts and are universal among all peoples, and have many ritual and religious manifestations.

Notice the use of the word "thus".

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

The Apocalypse of Paul (Nag Hammadi) is an early ascent narrative (around 200 CE), where Paul ascends with the Twelve Apostles to the tenth heaven, passing the angels and guardians of the paths and gates.

This is relevant to JS how? I don’t recall ten heavens in JS’s endowment. You aren’t suggesting JS was unique in the belief that angels escort souls to heaven, are you? The theme is so diffused and general that it’s practically meaningless to cite these ancient texts in this way. Aren’t we all, according to popular Christian myth, supposed to stand at the pearly gates to be tested by Peter before entrance?

A few examples:

In 1835, on the 26th of December, being carried away in a vision, I was in a beautiful garden, … I then saw the Lord Jesus coming to meet me: he was arrayed in white, and his countenance as the sun; he had twelve angels before him, and twelve behind him, … The Lord took me by the hand, and said unto me, follow thou me; … We then came to the bottom of a steep hill, and I saw at my right hand, as it were, a temple built of pure gold, mingled with glass, we then ascended the hill, hand-in-hand, the twelve angels before and the twelve behind; at the top of the hill were the gates of heaven, as it were, of pearl, cut in beautiful figures, and clear as crystal. At the gates stood two angels with trumpets in their hands, the Lord spoke to them, and the gates flew open; I saw within, the Lord sitting on his throne, which was of pearl, beautifully wrought in figures and ornaments, his countenance was as the lightning, almost too bright to behold; legions of angels were round about him, all singing, and playing on musical instruments. … After beholding several other things which it is not wisdom to write, I awoke from my vision.

--Millennial Star, 1 April 1842, 69-70.

Angels stand at the pearly gates of heaven with open arms, ready to welcome them into these blessed abodes.

--Sunday School Magazine 2 (Sept. 1842): 200

The angels welcome the souls of saints, in this heavenly progress, to their heavenly Canaan: they are not only porters to carry souls, but they are porters also to receive souls, they stand ready at heaven's gates, to set open the doors, and to bid them enter into their Master's joy. In that vision which John had of the great city, the holy Jerusalem, he saw twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels: Our English annotations say, that these angels are as porters to receive men into heaven: …

--John Wesley, Works of Isaac Ambrose … (Manchester, Eng., 1802), 385.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Bill Hamblin]

I understood exactly what you said. Perhaps the point lies in what you didn't say. I should think that a couple lines of clarification would be the better response rather than insisting that we must go read entire books in order to gain even a bit of insight as to why in the world the following was presented as being somehow profound:

So, if you understand what I said, what was my point.

I never said my statement was "profound." It was just an observation.

[Dan Vogel]

Game over.

You are so submerged in your silly details that you miss the big picture entirely.

Thanks for your opinion, but it’s not a scholarly position. Appeal to the “big picture” usually means the details don’t support your highly generalized theory.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[wenglund]

The wasn't the slightest issue of literalism in what I said.

I wasn't quoting you. Like I said to Mike earlier in the thread: "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't be intent on wearing it."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

I change my mind all the time about all sorts of things. I learn something new every day!

You might find something new today by answering my post.

[Bill Hamblin]

The answer was yes, but expected and with some qualification. There is only a vague similarity of a common theme, which JS could have independently invented when he “restored” true Masonry. Masonic lore explains the passes as a means of entering the different chambers of the temple for payment of services. When this was Mormonized to refer to the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial rooms, the ascension aspect was unavoidable. This explanation is far more relevant and elegant than appealing to some esoteric text that has no causal connection to JS or his endowment. There is therefore nothing compelling about your ascension theory.

This is a very strange argument. You are assuming JS had to have telestial and celestial rooms. You are assuming he had to have handclasps associated with encountering God rather than recognizing a Mason. You assume he had to have a celestial beginning and end of the ritual. You are assuming he had to have angelic guides. Since you are assuming JS made it all up with borrowings from Masonry, none of these assumptions are true. JS could have invented anything he wanted. The fact is that he came up with a classic ascent ritual.

We can debate what that means. But we cannot debate the fact itself.

Nor can we debate the obvious fact that the first three degrees of Masonry are not explicitly a classic ascent ritual.

PS Neither Solomon, nor his temple are mentioned in the LDS Endowment.

[Bill Hamblin]

You might find something new today by answering my post.

I already have. You don't understand what my position is.

[seriously honestly]

We leave it open to mod interpretation of what that means.

Nemesis

Is there a way to get a little more specific with the rules so this one doens't have to be left up to interpretation? What may seem ok to discuss to you may not seem ok by another mod and vise versa. From time to time I've seen things discussed with no issue and other times the same discussions are locked by other mods for bringing them up, leaving some of us (well at least me, I know) confused about what is ok/not ok to talk about.

[wenglund]

I already have. You don't understand what my position is.

Is that something new?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

Mike also isn’t used your method of controlling the discussion and framing your questions in a question-begging definitional way with words like “explicit” and issuing impossible demands for evidence from him while you take the greatest liberties in presenting your parallels. You want an explicit utterance from JS mentioning Freemasonry, but you can draw on ascension texts from any time or place in the ancient world, which have only the vaguest semblance to the temple endowment. While all that is of the greatest moment in your Mormon mind, you really can’t be surprised if researchers focus on direct parallels in JS’s immediate environment. If these were proposals for a research grant, which would you decide is more promising and fund?

Let's get something clear here. I didn't try to frame or control the discussion. Mike interjected a comment about my supposed position on celestial ascent in Masonry (which was, in fact, precisely the opposite of my actual position) and called it ridiculous. I discussed the explicit distinction trying to explain to Mike why he was wrong about my position. He has tacitly admitted now that he was wrong, though it is like pulling teeth to get him to make a clear statement on the matter.

At any rate, I am seeking clarity of thought. That's all. Mike and George are making the argument that JS was highly influenced by Masonry from the mid-1820s through the Endowment, in just about everything in Mormonism. So far, they claim they have "demonstrated" all sorts of things, when in fact they have not published a single peer-reviewed article on the subject. Nor have they actually provided a single piece of evidence or a single argument here. I even asked for some. They refused to give me any. It's really quite astonishing. They've simply made a litany of assertions. My initial objection was solely that their claims to have "demonstrated" their case are premature. I think this is obviously the case.

[Bill Hamblin]

I assume this caused you to issue your parallel to Greek dexiosis (ritual right handclasp). This doesn’t seem either remarkable or significant to our discussion since we are talking about specific and plural clasps for each of the three degrees—not just a greeting clasp or embrace. You can’t take something that is a direct parallel in JS’s environment, generalize it and locate it in the ancient world and believe you have done something significant.

I have a general rule against discussing details of the Endowment with apostates and anti-Mormons on message boards. I'm just funny that way.

I will say this. The form of handclasps may be similar--after all, they're handclasps. The meaning of the handclasps are dramatically different. I assume you'll agree? So, while the outward form may be similar, the ritual context, name and symbolic significance are completely different. Symbols don't have universal meanings any more than sounds do. Symbols have meaning within an interpretative context and community. The same symbols can have completely different meanings to different communities and in different ritual contexts. So, each person can decide for themselves. Is the meaning of the LDS handclasp closer to a Masonic handclasp to indicate the rate of pay, or to recognize another Mason, or to the ancient handclasp of Antiochus' deification and his acceptance by the gods after his ascent into heaven

To believe that the LDS Endowment is a revealed restoration of ancient covenant and ascent rituals does not mean that there are no parallels to or borrowings from JS's environment. After all, almost every single word in the Endowment can be found in the English dictionary.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Mike is a young man and likely to change his mind on lots of things. The question is can someone your age change their mind?

Mike also isn’t used your method of controlling the discussion and framing your questions in a question-begging definitional way with words like “explicit” and issuing impossible demands for evidence from him while you take the greatest liberties in presenting your parallels. You want an explicit utterance from JS mentioning Freemasonry, but you can draw on ascension texts from any time or place in the ancient world, which have only the vaguest semblance to the temple endowment. While all that is of the greatest moment in your Mormon mind, you really can’t be surprised if researchers focus on direct parallels in JS’s immediate environment. If these were proposals for a research grant, which would you decide is more promising and fund?

Look, this is silly. Mike and George claim that JS was fascinated by Masonry, was reading all sorts of Masonic lore beginning in the 1820s, and was influenced in a fundamental way by Masonry in the BOM, other LDS scripture, Endowment, etc. etc. If that is their argument, I find it perfectly reasonable to ask where JS explicitly mentioned Freemasonry and what he had to say about it. Methodologically speaking, this is absolutely fundamental to their argument.

I am not claiming JS directly borrowed from any known ancient ritual or text. I have never made that claim and do not believe it. The broader question is: are there ancient rituals of initiation and celestial ascent? How widespread are they? What ritual and substance do they contain? The evidence and methods necessary to answer these questions are quite different from the evidence and methods necessary to answer the questions of Mike and George. This is historiography 101.

You asked me to show to an ancient ritual handclasp. I did. I could show you dozens, and probably hundreds more. The ritual context of the Antiochus handclasp is closer to the ritual context of the LDS handclasp than the LDS is to the Masonic handclasp. What that means can be debated. But not the fact of the relative degree of similarity.

[LeSellers]

Look, this is silly. Mike and George claim that JS was fascinated by Masonry, was reading all sorts of Masonic lore beginning in the 1820s, and was influenced in a fundamental way by Masonry in the BOM, other LDS scripture, Endowment, etc. etc.

If he was so "fascinated" by it, and if his brother(s) and father joined the Masons in the 1820~30s, why did he not follow their lead?

Lehi

[Bill Hamblin]

The subject is more complex than making the simplistic observation that Masonic ritual doesn’t explicitly mention ascension. Yes, I think we can agree that JS (either through his own creativity or revelation) changed it to suit his own purposes. What could be more obvious?

It absolutely is more complex. I never said, implied nor believe that it isn't. In talking about the lack of explicit ascension ritual in Masonry, I was responding to a bogus attack by Mike. End of story. You have read a whole lot more into this than is there.

As to your second point, it is not at all obvious. JS did not "change Masonry to suit his purpose." He borrowed, redefined, and recontextualized and reconceptualized some Masonic symbols in the Endowment.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for your opinion, but it’s not a scholarly position. Appeal to the “big picture” usually means the details don’t support your highly generalized theory.

The details are irrelevant. This whole question is NOT about details at all.

You are bogged down in them and literally can't see the forest for the trees, which you so busy categorizing taxonomically.

I certainly hope it is not "a scholarly position." I am not a scholar, I am a philosopher. My function is to look at ARGUMENTS of "scholars" and show how there are right or wrong, and examine their unexamined, underlying, defective opinions.

The nature of inspiration and the source of testimony are perfectly dependent on the "big picture" and nothing else.

That is precisely what you are not understanding in all your historical nit-picking, on this subject and all others you post on. You are stuck in a literalistic mistaken understanding of the relationship between what you think is scientific and what is religious.

You don't understand that religion cannot be disproved by observation of details. That is the entire deficiency in all these arguments. The importance of the fact that Joseph was inspired to take an element from this tradition and an element from that tradition and put it all together in a new context escapes you all.

Your argument, if directed against Shakespeare, would essentially be - "Look here- he got this word from here and that word from there- this is not original in any way!"

Joseph, thorough inspiration, came up with a new context, for what came before. The context is uniquely Mormon in every detail- the idea of a God who is man, and our Father, his materialism, all he gave us as a prophet is mirrored in the temple ceremony. THAT is the whole point, and is exactly what you are missing.

It is as if you are busy studying the historical origin of each letter of the alphabet, and not reading the sentence in its cultural context. The historic details are unimportant; the paradigm shift he created (through inspiration) is EVERYTHING.

[Bill Hamblin]

If he was so "fascinated" by it, and if his brother(s) and father joined the Masons in the 1820~30s, why did he not follow their lead?

Lehi

No kidding. It seems crystal clear that if JS was as fascinated by Masonry in the late 1820s as Mike and George claim, the first and most obvious manifestation of this would be that he would become a Mason.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

My thought exactly!

Yet he got a Wow! for this astonishing observation!

If you look at the details of the hands, you would understand. At least in one case, it is clear that these are not random handshakes or greetings

[Senator]

If you look at the details of the hands, you would understand. At least in one case, it is clear that these are not random handshakes or greetings

I've looked at the detail of the hands. Perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Which one in particular gives a clear indication?

[Mike Reed]

No kidding. It seems crystal clear that if JS was as fascinated by Masonry in the late 1820s as Mike and George claim, the first and most obvious manifestation of this would be that he would become a Mason.

I hate stating the obvious: Perhaps he thought it was *dangerous* to join. Morgan Affair, anti-Masonic backlash that followed, lodges shut down... yeah... I am sure joining would have been on the top of his list. No... it was better to hunker down and weather the storm, or practice underground/clandestinely.

[Bill Hamblin]

I hate stating the obvious: Perhaps he thought it was *dangerous* to join. Morgan Affair, anti-Masonic backlash that followed, lodges shut down... yeah... I am sure joining would have been on the top of his list. No... it was better to hunker down and weather the storm, or practice underground/clandestinely.

Well, if you say perhaps that certainly provides all the evidence we need. On the other hand, the anti-Masonic movement had become moribund by the mid-1830s. So why wait almost a decade after that to join?

[LeSellers]

I hate stating the obvious:

Yet you decided to anyway. Maybe it is not so obvious.

Perhaps he thought it was *dangerous* to join. Morgan Affair, anti-Masonic backlash that followed, lodges shut down... yeah... I am sure joining would have been on the top of his list. No... it was better to hunker down and weather the storm, or practice underground/clandestinely.

Joseph, "hunker down"?!?

Joseph, worried about "dangerous"!?!

Please, this was a guy who was tarred and feathered (among a host of other persecutions) for what he believed, and you try to make a case that he was afraid of being a Mason? Please, get serious.

Lehi

Edited October 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

I hate stating the obvious: Perhaps he thought it was *dangerous* to join.

So, his brother and father were members, BUT it was "dangerous" for him to join?

What harm befell his brother or father because of their membership that would make it "dangerous" for Joseph to join?

Edited October 12, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

Dup.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Vance

[wenglund]

I will say this. The form of handclasps may be similar--after all, they're handclasps. The meaning of the handclasps are dramatically different. I assume you'll agree? So, while the outward form may be similar, the ritual context, name and symbolic significance are completely different. Symbols don't have universal meanings any more than sounds do. Symbols have meaning within an interpretative context and community. The same symbols can have completely different meanings to different communities and in different ritual contexts. So, each person can decide for themselves. Is the meaning of the LDS handclasp closer to a Masonic handclasp to indicate the rate of pay, or to recognize another Mason, or to the ancient handclasp of Antiochus' deification and his acceptance by the gods after his ascent into heaven

To believe that the LDS Endowment is a revealed restoration of ancient covenant and ascent rituals does not mean that there are no parallels to or borrowings from JS's environment. After all, almost every single word in the Endowment can be found in the English dictionary.

This is a key point to me.

It is in the meaning of the symbols, and not so much the symbols, themselves, where I believe the revelation and inspiration may be most pronounced.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 12, 2011 by wenglund