Temple Talk Guidelines

[Mike Reed]

That's my point. And it is quite the opposite of what Mike attributed to me.

Ok... I didn't phrase the question well enough. Either way, your position is ridiculous. To get a sense of what I had in mind when I asked the question, see the following link where Joe Swick thoroughly debunks the distinction you make: http://proclus.tripod.com/discus28.html

[mfbukowski]

*shrug* As a lowly Elder's Quorum teacher, I, for one, have no problem [edit: if it turns out that] many aspects of the Temple ritual [were] influenced by Masonry. I think Nibley's argument in Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri was substantially correct - that is, from a diffusionist perspective (which isn't in fashion these days, but which I personally espouse), most esoteric ritual systems in the world are descended from common origins. Joseph takes the preexisting form of the ritual - was it Kimball who quoted Joseph as saying that many things in Masonry are "perfect", even if some things had degenerated? - tweaks it around a bit, and gives it the imprimatur of his Prophetic authority. Voila. No biggie.

[Edit: As an aside, I am also dismayed at how few of the people I've run into have read An Egyptian Endowment, both Mormon and Non. Heck, Nibs is such an excellent writer that it's a great book even if you believe it's talking about pure fiction.]

Couldn't agree more, on all accounts- that is a phenomenal book.

There is no question that the central core of all religions deal with the same issues and have similar answers.

[Bill Hamblin]

Given the historical context and Joseph Smith's consistent views on the fraternity, this is EXACTLY how we should expect Joseph Smith to respond. I agree ... isn't that interesting. So completely and ENTIRELY consistent with Masonic legends of the day to which Joseph was privy. :acute:

So, if its positive its consistent, and if its negative its consistent. There may be a historiographical problem with that methodology.

However, if Masonry is almost never mentioned at all by JS, is that consistent with your theory too? Is there actually any way to disprove your theory?

Edited October 11, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok... I didn't phrase the question well enough. Either way, your position is ridiculous. To get a sense of what I had in mind when I asked the question, see the following link where Joe Swick thoroughly debunks the distinction you make: http://proclus.tripo...m/discus28.html

Actually, he doesn't. He doesn't understand the distinction I make. Do you?

Here's the question Swick said he was engaging:

"I have again been asked to provide evidence that there was/is such a thing as "heavenly ascent" in

Masonry in the days of Joseph Smith."

I have repeated said that there were esoteric interpretations of the first three degrees that saw them as allegories of ascent. I have never said otherwise. This does not mean the rituals are explicitly ascent rituals.

Whatever question Swick is answering, he does not engage the issue I raised, which is: the first three degrees of Masonry do not contain an explicit ascent ritual.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes and as Mike at the MHA and others like Joe Swick have shown, ascent was a common interpretation of the ritual in Joseph Smith's day which Joseph Smith was exposed to via multiple readily available sources in Vermont, Palmyra, Missouri and Nauvoo. As Joe demonstrated, the framers of the ritual had a celestial ascent in mind when they framed the ritual. Joseph Smith largely following a Masonic lead in making what was implicit in the ritual explicit.

Do you grasp the difference between ascent mythos as "a common interpretation" of the three degrees, and the three degrees as being not explicitly an ascent ritual? Do you understand the significance of that distinction? Do you understand its methodological implications?

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes and as Mike at the MHA and others like Joe Swick have shown, ascent was a common interpretation of the ritual in Joseph Smith's day which Joseph Smith was exposed to via multiple readily available sources in Vermont, Palmyra, Missouri and Nauvoo. As Joe demonstrated, the framers of the ritual had a celestial ascent in mind when they framed the ritual. Joseph Smith largely following a Masonic lead in making what was implicit in the ritual explicit.

Whether JS was actually influenced by such sources is something that needs to be carefully and rigorously argued (rather than merely asserted), and then carefully and skeptically evaluated (rather than blithely accepted).

[Mike Reed]

Couldn't agree more, on all accounts- that is a phenomenal book.

There is no question that the central core of all religions deal with the same issues and have similar answers.

Where is the pre-existing unified form, then? The further back I go, the more fractured and independently dispersed endowment elements (which are shared with freemasonry) seem to be found. You would think... if Joseph Smith actually "restored" a pre-existing unified form, that the opposite would be the case. And one would not expect the similarities of the Nauvoo endowment to most closely parallel American freemasonry.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes and as Mike at the MHA and others like Joe Swick have shown, ascent was a common interpretation of the ritual in Joseph Smith's day which Joseph Smith was exposed to via multiple readily available sources in Vermont, Palmyra, Missouri and Nauvoo.

I notice that George seems to agree with my evaluation of the issue. He apparently does not believe that my "position is ridiculous" as Mike claims. So Mike, do you think George's agreement with me on the distinction between explicit ritual of the first three degrees and the esoteric interpretations of the first three degrees is "ridiculous"?

[Mike Reed]

I notice that George seems to agree with my evaluation of the issue. He apparently does not believe that my "position is ridiculous" as Mike claims. So Mike, do you think George's agreement with me on the distinction between explicit ritual of the first three degrees and the esoteric interpretations of the first three degrees is "ridiculous"?

Keep grasping at straws, Dr. Hamblin. You said several things in the post he was resonding to. Which of these things was he saying "yes" to, I will leave that to him to explain. I am not worried about George's perspective, and I think your are a little too optomistic in thinking you have set us against eachother.

[Mike Reed]

Gotta get back to my homework.

[Mike Reed]

I'll be back. Hopefully sooner than later.

[Bill Hamblin]

Keep grasping at straws, Dr. Hamblin. You said several things in the post he was resonding to. Which of these things was he saying "yes" to, I will leave that to him to explain. I am not worried about George's perspective, and I think your are a little too optomistic in thinking you have set us against eachother.

Go back and read what he said "yes" to. It seems pretty clear to me.

I still haven't seen any evidence that you've understood my point.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

I have been trying to get ahold of Swedenborgian Masonic rites. Any chance you might be able to help me out?

Well I am not sure, they are extremely esoteric and difficult to obtain- have you tried Amazon?

http://www.amazon.co...SSJ572V5JXJZYS5

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1564593622

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1163068063/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1564593622&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0EMT6436V8J1748EVX03

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

Go back and read what he said "yes" to. It seems pretty clear to me.

I still haven't seen any evidence that you've understood my point.

I understand your point. You speak in regards to what is explicit rather than implicit. I don't don't understand, however, how this observation distinguishes the endowment from freemasony in any meaningful way. If Joseph intended to create higher (celestialized) degrees of masonry, it was perfectly within the Masonic frame of mind to make the veil of symbolism more transparent, and meaning less implicit and more explicit. This is what was supposed to happen as an initiate advances to greater degrees. The initiate was supposed to (with new/added symbolism) gain greater light, knowledge, and a better perception of the message. And to many (if not most) masons of Joseph's time and location... that message was about the fall, redemption, and ascension of man.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Where is the pre-existing unified form, then? The further back I go, the more fractured and independently dispersed endowment elements (which are shared with freemasonry) seem to be found. You would think... if Joseph Smith actually "restored" a pre-existing unified form, that the opposite would be the case. And one would not expect the similarities of the Nauvoo endowment to most closely parallel American freemasonry.

Come on dude!

The whole controversy about the Book of Abraham and the title of Nibley's book is "An Egyptian Endowment". You know that!

The entire discussion is one about the similarities between Egyptian rites and the endowment- never mentioning Masonry of course, and explicitly stating that the source of the Endowment is a common ancestor of both sets of rituals

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Bill Hamblin]

I understand your point. You speak in regards to what is explicit rather than implicit. I don't don't understand, however, how this observation distinguishes the endowment from freemasony in any meaningful way. If Joseph intended to create higher (celestialized) degrees of masonry, it was perfectly within the Masonic frame of mind to make the veil of symbolism more transparent, and meaning less implicit and more explicit. This is what was supposed to happen as an initiate advances to greater degrees. The initiate was supposed to (with new/added symbolism) gain greater light, knowledge, and a better perception of the message. And to many (if not most) masons of Joseph's time and location... that message was about the fall, redemption, and ascension of man.

Well, we'll see its significance when we publish your article/book.

So you no longer see the distinction as "ridiculous"?

[Mike Reed]

Well I am not sure, they are extremely esoteric and difficult to obtain- have you tried Amazon?

I dn't believe these are the early swedenborgian rites, but rather the midified ones as they existed long after Joseph Smith's death.

[Mike Reed]

So you no longer see the distinction as "ridiculous"?

Meaningless distinctions do appear pretty ridiculous to me, especially when they are employed with apologetic intent.

[Mike Reed]

The entire discussion is one about the similarities between Egyptian rites and the endowment- never mentioning Masonry of course, and explicitly stating that the source of the Endowment is a common ancestor of both sets of rituals

I reject Nibley's argument. There are parallels, sure. But these parallels are not nearly as strong as what is found between the endowment and American Freemasonry. I will also say this... I do not deny that the papyrus may have had some influence upon Joseph's imagination when he created the endowment. If so, then Joseph Smith was doing the same sort of things that many other masons were doing in his day: reading biblical and masonic narratives into Egyptian artifacts.

[Mike Reed]

It is late. Really... I've gotta get back to my homework.

[mfbukowski]

I reject Nibley's argument. There are parallels, sure. But these parallels are not nearly as strong as what is found between the endowment and American Freemasonry. I will also say this... I do not deny that the papyrus may have had some influence upon Joseph's imagination when he created the endowment. If so, then Joseph Smith was doing the same sort of things that many other masons were doing in his day: reading biblical and masonic narratives into Egyptian artifacts.

To me, that surrenders your whole argument. That is what I am saying as well, except that would say he was "discovering" biblical and masonic narratives in Egyptian artifacts.

And another big difference is that where the others were going on their own, he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, and oddly enough, the Holy Ghost has decided to confirm that to me.

Absent the testimony on your side, we are saying essentially the same thing.

The bottom line, is that your argument, if intended to be somehow a "gotcha" about masonry and the origins of the endowment, is totally impotent.

It is irrelevant to the meaning of the endowment in my life, and not worth much time to worry about, frankly. The historical "parallels" are there and one cannot expect much more from history. The alleged "evidence" is far too vague and subject to interpretation to "prove" much of anything either way.

[mfbukowski]

Don't Masons take oaths not to discuss their rituals? If so, we should respect their view in my opinion.

Apparently, this attitude is unknown in the "civilized" world of academia. I was adhering to their standards instead of common morality. After all some things are more important than doing what is right.

[Storm Rider]

Apparently, this attitude is unknown in the "civilized" world of academia. I was adhering to their standards instead of common morality. After all some things are more important than doing what is right.

I apologize coming in late and not reading every comment coming to this point, but just reading the bolded statement above I was dumbfounded. Do you really think there are times when doing what is right is not the right choice,...always?

[Calm]

I apologize coming in late and not reading every comment coming to this point, but just reading the bolded statement above I was dumbfounded. Do you really think there are times when doing what is right is not the right choice,...always?

I am sure mf is being sarcastic.

[Storm Rider]

Coming in late makes me a little slow. Sorry to derail the topic. The written word is difficult when using sarcasm.