Temple Talk Guidelines

[mfbukowski]

I had a thread a while ago with a text which spoke of Christs. Decent through the heavens and then his ascent back up to God glorified and how he had to have passwords to get between the last 4 levels.

Heres the link:

http://www.mormondia...__fromsearch__1

Information on Ascension of Isaiah

M. A. Knibb writes (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 143): "The Ascension of Isaiah is a composite work which falls very obviously into two parts, chapters 1-5 and chapters 6-11; the first part is now known as the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the second bears the title the Vision of Isaiah. However, the Martyrdom of Isaiah is itself composite; included within these chapters is an independent section, 3:13-4:22, which is sometimes called the Testament of Hezekiah. Apart from these three main sections there are a number of additions and insertions which are to be attributed to the final editor of the whole book."

C. Detlef G. Müller writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, pp. 604-605):

Composition and date: in its present form the Ascensio Isaiae is a Christian work, which was put together at the earliest in the second half of the 2nd century. It was intended to combat, in the manner of an ancient apocalypse, certain contemporary evils, the lack of discipline and the divisions in the Church. One cannot however fail to recognize that the work takes up traditions already in existence and makes them serve its purpose.

Chapters I to V present the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah. The activity of Sammael, the prince of this world, is there portrayed in all its wickedness for all to see. III 13-V. 1 interrupts the narrative, already hints at the prophet's ascension, and then presents an apocalypse which is indisputably Christian. It refers to the Saviour and his twelve apostles. This part must be put to the account of the Christian author of the work as a whole. Here too, naturally, he will be dependent on traditions in circulation. In chapters VI to XI we then have the second main section, which presents the ascension or vision of the prophet Isaiah. Here also there is an interruption in the flow of the narrative, at XI 2-22, which again proves to be an interpolation; it reports on Mary and Joseph, the birth of the Saviour and his crucifixion.

The book thus uses old tradition and interpolates it with Christian material. We therefore cannot in any case affirm a uniform origin for the Ascension of Isaiah. A literary unity, such as Vacher Burch still postulates (JTS 21, 1920, 249-265), can only relate to the activity of the compiler, who naturally adapted the material - so far for example as the prophet's martyrdom is concerned - to his own purposes. The oldest part may be this martyrdom of Isaiah - a document of Jewish origin which uses material the existence of which is attested by Heb. 11:37. For the transmission of the document and its prestige the most important factor was without doubt the prophet's ascension or vision, which portrays the seven heavens and refers to the coming deliverance by the Redeemer. Here XI 2-22 is an additional interpolation which makes more precise an already Christian document of the 2nd century. The martyrdom must have been prefaced to the ascension only later, and on this occasion expanded by the Christian apocalypse.

http://www.earlychri.../ascension.html

This is clearly fraudulent, Zak, because it is not masonic. Evidence that is not masonic does not count. Don't you know anything?

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

It is quite apparent that you are utterly incapable of understanding or accurately representing my position.

I wasn't talking about your position. I was responding to mfbukowski's claim:

"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"

Edited my post above to make this more obvious.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Zakuska]

http://www.earlychri.../ascension.html

This is clearly fraudulent, Zak, because it is not masonic. Evidence that is not masonic does not count. Don't you know anything?

I wasn't putting it forth as authentic. Dan asked if there were any ascent narratives which speak of signs and tokens. And this is the first one that came to mind, of having passwords to have to get between the levels of Heaven. There are parallels also in the Egyptian Seti I ascensions as well. Where the Pharoah has to speak the secret incantations/passwords to pass by the Sential Snake guardians through the 10 gates.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Dan Vogel]

Bukowski,

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.

You know philosophers are not immune to defective opinions. The history of philosophy shows some real dumb philosophies—like relativism. You have given us two examples here. Your plea for not letting details get in the way of a good story above, and your wild misguided speculations below.

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

Your definition of inspiration begs the question. We don’t know what inspiration depends on. What we do know is that you need this definition of inspiration to explain the evidence you have presented.

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.

I don’t think there is a relationship. Religion has no currency in historical debates.

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.

I’m not trying to disprove religion; I’m criticizing the apologists’ arguments. Philosophers aren’t the only ones who can do that. You aren’t any more authorized to tell us what JS did through revelation than anyone else. This is just a theory that needs defending, and it happens to be both untestable and unfalsifiable.

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!"

Here, you are playing off of Hamblin’s argument that every word in the endowment is in the English dictionary, which is meaningless. The parallels to Masonic ritual are undeniable, as you just admitted above.

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.

I’m not denying that the endowment has meaning to Mormons.

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.

I’m looking at the endowment historically; you are looking at it theologically. You are not wrong to do that, but it doesn’t rule out observations of its historical origins. This is where Miller’s position comes in. As I’ve already said, JS obviously used the Masonic ritual as inspiration for his endowment ceremony, whether he was inspired by God to do that is not a historical concern. Drawing on ancient parallels won’t answer that question either.

[Bill Hamblin]

I wasn't talking about your position. I was responding to mfbukowski claim:

"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"

He didn't say what you accuse him of saying either.

It is really, really frustrating trying to have a cogent, rational discussion with you.

[volgadon]

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

QUmran is one example. Another is R. Elimelech of Lizhensk who considered eating a religious duty of vital importance, as it separates the holly essence of food from its outer husks. These must be immediately discarded by defecation in order to get rid of impure elements. Doing this will bring about a union above between the forces represented by the name YHWH and those represented by Shadday.

[Bill Hamblin]

I’m looking at the endowment historically; you are looking at it theologically. You are not wrong to do that, but it doesn’t rule out observations of its historical origins. This is where Miller’s position comes in. As I’ve already said, JS obviously used the Masonic ritual as inspiration for his endowment ceremony, whether he was inspired by God to do that is not a historical concern. Drawing on ancient parallels won’t answer that question either.

It's not at all obvious. That's precisely what the debate is about. That there are parallels between a few elements of the Endowment and a few elements of Masonry is obvious. That the endowment gives those few elements a completely different meaning and context is also obvious. Your claim (in bold) is not obvious at all. Masonic ritual alone is simply not sufficient to explain the endowment. I believe Mike and George at least tacitly agree with this, since there thesis is that JS for several decades borrowed from a wide range of Masonic sources going far beyond the actual Masonic ritual of the first three degrees. So the basic point of the insufficiency of the Masonic ritual of the first three degrees to explain the endowment seems to be agreed by all.

[Cobalt-70]

No. The evidence George and I have gathered (and, very likely, will continue to gather) indicates his interest. And no we aren't going to share that information with you here. The post you respond to is an "explanation." Do I need to define this word for you too? It is an "explanation" of why Joseph wouldn't have joined, despite his interest in the craft. Comprende?

I'm looking forward to seeing what evidence may exist that Smith had a favorable view of Freemasonry circa 1829 when he dictated the portions of the Book of Mormon that seem so obviously anti-Masonic. I don't think anybody has mentioned this, but when Smith was trying to market the Book of Mormon to regional publishers, he made two visits to the famous anti-Mason Thurlow Weed in Rochester, the leading anti-Masonic voice of his era, and tried to get him to publish the book. Why would he have approached Thurlow Weed unless he knew that the book had an anti-Masonic message? It will take some significant evidence to convince me that Joseph Smith was not on the side of the anti-Masons in 1829-30.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Bill Hamblin]

QUmran is one example. Another is R. Elimelech of Lizhensk who considered eating a religious duty of vital importance, as it separates the holly essence of food from its outer husks. These must be immediately discarded by defecation in order to get rid of impure elements. Doing this will bring about a union above between the forces represented by the name YHWH and those represented by Shadday.

That may be more than I need to know.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't putting it forth as authentic. Dan asked if there were any ascent narratives which speak of signs and tokens. And this is the first one that came to mind, of having passwords to have to get between the levels of Heaven. There are parallels also in the Egyptian Seti I ascensions as well. Where the Pharoah has to speak the secret incantations/passwords to pass by the Sential Snake guardians through the 10 gates.

My sarcasm got me again. Sorry. No, I think it is highly relevant to the discussion. Thanks. I was being sarcastic. Clearly this is NOT masonic and clearly there are many many parallels here, it is an ancient Jewish source, it is relevant to Isaiah being in the BOM, etc.

It discusses what you have mentioned, as well as being "raised" to different degrees by being taken by the hand, receiving garments, and many other parallels, and those parallels have been recognized repeatedly by LDS scholars.

Clearly it is relevant to the discussion!

[Mike Reed]

Ok... gotta stop posting on this thread and do my schoolwork. Out!

[Dan Vogel]

I wasn't putting it forth as authentic. Dan asked if there were any ascent narratives which speak of signs and tokens. And this is the first one that came to mind, of having passwords to have to get between the levels of Heaven. There are parallels also in the Egyptian Seti I ascensions as well. Where the Pharoah has to speak the secret incantations/passwords to pass by the Sential Snake guardians through the 10 gates.

Of course, I know that there are ancient incantations and passes. I'm looking for exact parallels that might make the parallels to Masonic ritual less significant.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, I know that there are ancient incantations and passes. I'm looking for exact parallels that might make the parallels to Masonic ritual less significant.

We are not talking about exact verbal parallels (especially since English wasn't spoken at the time). We are talking about contextual parallels of meaning, not verbal borrowings.

[Dan Vogel]

It's not at all obvious. That's precisely what the debate is about. That there are parallels between a few elements of the Endowment and a few elements of Masonry is obvious. That the endowment gives those few elements a completely different meaning and context is also obvious. Your claim (in bold) is not obvious at all. Masonic ritual alone is simply not sufficient to explain the endowment. I believe Mike and George at least tacitly agree with this, since there thesis is that JS for several decades borrowed from a wide range of Masonic sources going far beyond the actual Masonic ritual of the first three degrees. So the basic point of the insufficiency of the Masonic ritual of the first three degrees to explain the endowment seems to be agreed by all.

I basically agree that everything didn't come from Masonry, but "sufficient" sounds like we need parallels (either ancient or modern) for everything. We don't. There is no requirement to do so. You are also downplaying the similarities. Earlier publications of the endowment show similar wording that was later deleted and finally removed altogether.

[Dan Vogel]

We are not talking about exact verbal parallels (especially since English wasn't spoken at the time). We are talking about contextual parallels of meaning, not verbal borrowings.

I'm also not talking verbal parallels, but the signs, tokens, and names used in the same manner.

[mfbukowski]

I don’t think there is a relationship. Religion has no currency in historical debates.

Yay! At last we agree on something. Of course it is also true that history has no currency in religious debates. Can't have one without the other. Theology is what is important here, not your interpretation of "his-story".

What we are discussing here is whether or not the endowment was inspired by God. You may think we are discussing something else, but if that is what you think, you are wrong. This is an apologetics board, not a history board. If that's what you are looking for, your efforts would be better appreciated elsewhere.

You aren’t any more authorized to tell us what JS did through revelation than anyone else. This is just a theory that needs defending, and it happens to be both untestable and unfalsifiable.

Right again. THAT IS WHAT THEOLOGY IS!

Here, you are playing off of Hamblin’s argument that every word in the endowment is in the English dictionary, which is meaningless. The parallels to Masonic ritual are undeniable, as you just admitted above.

Just between you and me, I missed that post of Hamblin's that used that argument, and didn't see it until after I posted- we were just on the same wavelength. But I have no problem "playing off" his arguments- I happen to think he is a very smart guy. And with my ego, that's saying something. Most historians, as you demonstrate, are not even acquainted with my field, but clearly he is quite knowledgeable in philosophy, as is Dan Peterson. I would be honored to help amplify any point he raises. (Yes I am shamelessly kissing up to Hamblin)

I’m not denying that the endowment has meaning to Mormons.

Good idea.

I’m looking at the endowment historically; you are looking at it theologically. You are not wrong to do that, but it doesn’t rule out observations of its historical origins.

I would say "historical context" instead of "origins". Big difference when we are discussing theology. But that is the issue it appears you are not understanding. I think it came "from God" and is expressed in an historical context. You think it has a historical "origin". That is a big difference.

This is where Miller’s position comes in. As I’ve already said, JS obviously used the Masonic ritual as inspiration for his endowment ceremony, whether he was inspired by God to do that is not a historical concern. Drawing on ancient parallels won’t answer that question either.

Whether or not he was influenced historically is not a theological concern. You cannot argue against theology by using history, but this is precisely what you and Mike are attempting. It won't work.

Why is it that you keep proving my case for me?

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I'm also not talking verbal parallels, but the signs, tokens, and names used in the same manner.

In terms of determining the origins of things, does it matter to you if some of the symbols are the same if the meaning of those symbols are different?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

If Masonry was being Chjristianized at the time, then shouldn;'t you be looking at Christianity rather than Masonry for the origins of certain things?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

I believe Mike and George at least tacitly agree with this, since there thesis is that JS for several decades borrowed from a wide range of Masonic sources going far beyond the actual Masonic ritual of the first three degrees.

Actually... the necessary range of sources have been quite narrow thus far. We do not believe that Joseph smith's endowment derived 100% from freemasonry. However, we do believe that most did. Did Joseph Smith modify certain parts of the ritual according to his needs? Of course. Much like a person does when creating a patch-quilt. He exercised some creative freedom when piecing together certain parts, but most (if not all) of those parts were materials that came from his 19th century environment.

Ok this time I am serious.. I am Out!

... or am I?

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But the point (as Vogel pointed out) is that there is simply no empirical means of discerning whether the process of piecing-together preexisting elements which occurred in Joseph Smith's mind was an example of an imaginative young man exercising "creative freedom" or a Prophet inspired by the Gift of God to put the pieces together into a new context/story which would restore ancient concepts of Celestial Ascent. The psychoanalysis angle didn't work for Brodie, and it doesn't work now; you can glide right over the difficulty that the subjectivity of the process poses by stating that "of course" it was Joseph's needs which necessitated the changes to the ritual, but this is simply begging the question.

(The "parallelomania" people lazily accuse Nibley of is, of course, a double-edged sword in that the 19th-century parallels are not intrinsically more relevant unless they are interpreted in a preexisting framework in which there is no such thing as revelation or inspiration, which is of course the entire point at issue.)

[wenglund]

I really like Mike's quilt metaphor.

It reminds me of years ago when my grandmother cut up a bunch of my Dad's old suits and made quilt for me. Clearly, the cloth from the suits once served one purpose (to comprise several suite), but later served a different purpose (comprise a quilt). The pieces of cloth, like symbols if you will, were shared in common between the suits and the quilt, but the purposes or meaning of the cloth/symbols were quite different.

Was my Grandmother's quilt plagiarized from my Dad's suits? I don't think so--certainly not in terms of the critical matter of purpose or meaning. Quilts are not suits.

To me, the same is true of Free-Masonry and LDS temple rituals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2011 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

This is relevant to JS how?

Oh, I must have been mistaken. I thought you asked,

Ascent narratives are supposed to be more significant than parallels to Masonic ritual? Do these ascent texts speak of signs and tokens?

I was simply providing an ancient ascent narrative that spoke of signs. Sorry I misunderstood your request.

I don’t recall ten heavens in JS’s endowment.

There are at least 9 that have been revealed.

Pre-mortal, outer darkness, spirit prison, paradise, telestial kingdom (in all its varieties),

terrestrial kingdom, and 3 levels of the celestial kingdom.

You aren’t suggesting JS was unique in the belief that angels escort souls to heaven, are you?

No. The angel escorts Paul along his ascent, gives him direction and instruction, and coaches him when it comes time to give a sign. That's unique.

The theme is so diffused and general that it’s practically meaningless to cite these ancient texts in this way.

Perhaps to you, but then would you find anything to be meaningful along these lines?

I find the similarities between the LDS endowment and the Apocalypse of Paul at least as

meaningful as the similarities between the endowment and Masonry.

Aren’t we all, according to popular Christian myth, supposed to stand at the pearly gates to be tested by Peter before entrance?

Yes, according to Christian popular myth. However, the LDS endowment and the Apocalypse of Paul are not popular Christian myths. Neither of them mention Peter at the pearly gates. Do the apostles have a part in the creation, according to popular Christian myth? Does popular Christian myth tell of Paul ascending to heaven, saying "I am going

to the place from which I came?"

Bernard

Edited October 13, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Mike Reed]

There is simply no empirical means of discerning whether the process of piecing-together preexisting elements which occurred in Joseph Smith's mind was an example of an imaginative young man exercising "creative freedom" or a Prophet inspired by the Gift of God to put the pieces together into a new context/story which would restore ancient concepts of Celestial Ascent.

There are means for determining materials used. The same for determining sources of "patterns" used to piece materials together. The same for determining "lenses" through which certain materials and patterns are perceived/interpreted by the maker. The rigorous use of proper historical methods can (and do) do this for us, with great success, using empirical data. The level of probability increases the more striking parallels are, and the greater quantity of parallels coming from a single source, and the more readily available a source is. It is not a perfect science. Neither is it a psychoanalytical method. Can one COMPLETELY eliminate the possibility that God may have somehow been involved in the process? Nope. Why? Because God always--often, through the assistance of the believer readjusting their faith, it seems--ends up existing outside our realm of empirical testability. Hence, the “possible” participation of God should not really be my concern. From the believer’s perspective, however, my study might, by degree, remove God further from the equation of faith. So it is understandable that historical methods may make people feel uncomfortable.

Back to homework.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

Back to homework.

Face it, once you've given into the dark side there is no going back......or keeping away.