Temple Talk Guidelines

[Bill Hamblin]

Good point Dan --- especially when the most explicit reference to celestial ascent is not in the endowment, but instead in Brigham Young's interpretation of the ritual, the verbiage which BTW echos common Masonic sentiments about their own ritual.

Well, personally if there was a ritual that begins in the celestial realm in the council of the gods, progresses through a fall from that realm, involves angelic messengers to bring the initiate back to the celestial realm, and culminates to a return of the initiate to the celestial realm in the presence of God, I would call it an ascent ritual. Would you?

On the other hand, if a ritual talks about the building an ancient temple, the death of a worker there, and the search for his murderers, I would not call it an ascent ritual. Would you?

The first is an explicit ascent ritual, plain and simple. The second is not. While the second may be interpreted by some as an allegory of ascent, it is not an explicit ascent ritual.

This seems so patently obvious to me that I am perplexed why some people can't see it.

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone else noticed that my thread immediately went off on a tangent never to return? I still have several outstanding questions about how far I can go in talking about the temple and my personal feelings about the experience.

I for one have said all I can on that subject, and I think all the others have as well. Since the mods have told you basically that "it depends", I would suggest that that is the end of the discussion until you get reprimanded for going too far.

[Bill Hamblin]

So did you or did you not write this portion of the review?

Alas, I can't remember. The prose seems a bit more like Dan. But if I didn't write it I certainly agree with it.

I've listened to your podcast, and think I have a grasp of your basic theory on the matter. Alas, I remain unconvinced.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Tarski]

I for one have said all I can on that subject, and I think all the others have as well. Since the mods have told you basically that "it depends", I would suggest that that is the end of the discussion until you get reprimanded for going too far.

Yikes. I hope I get a warning.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ascent narratives are supposed to be more significant than parallels to Masonic ritual? Do these ascent texts speak of signs and tokens? Is there anything in these texts that JS needed to know before Mormonizing the Masonic ritual? It seems ascent was unavoidable once Masonic ritual became temple ritual.

Actually, the issue is significant. But that's not the point I was making.

I am trying to get the masonic-temple theorists to grasp the distinction between an overt and explicit ascent ritual like the LDS Endowment, and a non-explicitly ascent ritual like the first three degrees of Masonry. It's like pulling teeth to get anyone to actually recognize and clearly admit there is a distinction, let alone recognize its possible implications.

The implications of that distinction can be debated later--based on further evidence and analysis. But no coherent discussion can occur until that distinction is recognized. We started the discussion with the assertion that my insistence that there is a distinction was "ridiculous" and completely disproven. We seem to have advanced to the point where now it is obvious, but unimportant and irrelevant. It's a bit of progress, but it's baby-steps.

And nothing is unavoidable.

[mfbukowski]

Well, personally if there was a ritual that begins in the celestial realm in the council of the gods, progresses through a fall from that realm, involves angelic messengers to bring the initiate back to the celestial realm, and culminates to a return of the initiate to the celestial realm in the presence of God, I would call it an ascent ritual. Would you?

On the other hand, if a ritual talks about the building an ancient temple, the death of a worker there, and the search for his murderers, I would not call it an ascent ritual. Would you?

The first is an explicit ascent ritual, plain and simple. The second is not. While the second may be interpreted by some as an allegory of ascent, it is not an explicit ascent ritual.

This seems so patently obvious to me that I am perplexed why some people can't see it.

[Calm]

As a Mason I can get it for you ... all you have to do is wear this silly costume, give me you first born child and infiltrate the world bank .... {smile} {chortle} {guffaw}

Firstborn...world bank...sure, silly costume...that is just unreasonable!

[Calm]

Yikes. I hope I get a warning.

I would think since you asked ahead of time they would give you the benefit of the doubt. You could also put a disclaimer in your post asking them to remove anything they feel goes too far and then check back on older posts to see if any editing has been done before posting something new...

[George Miller]

So what is your position then regarding the degree of inspiration and/or the status of the endowment as compared to scripture?

I raised the question because I thought that you were denying that there was inspired content in the endowment.

There is inspired content, but EVERY BIT of that inspired content came through naturalistic elements available in Joseph Smith's environment. Joseph Smith's form of revelation is no different, and for large part of the same magnitude, as God is willing and able to bestow on each and every one of his children. IMHO that is exactly how God has, does, and likely always will act in this world, through natural law, which we have a good grasp on a this point in time. I expect to find COMPLETELY naturalistic avenues for all the inspiration endowed by God. This methodology is messy, and has the obvious problem of delivering religious texts (and in this case rituals) which are ahistorical in their content.

You asked about my stance ... well there it is.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[mfbukowski]

Yikes. I hope I get a warning.

Ya rolls the dice and ya take your chances. Chances are, you will.

[Cobalt-70]

There is inspired content, but EVERY BIT of that inspired content came through naturalistic elements available in Joseph Smith's environment. Joseph Smith's form of revelation is no different, and for large part of the same magnitude, as God is willing and able to bestow on each and every one of his children. IMHO that is exactly how God has, does, and likely always will act in this world, through natural law, which we have a good grasp on a this point in time. I expect to find COMPLETELY naturalistic avenues for all the inspiration endowed by God. This methodology is messy, and has the obvious problem of delivering religious texts (and in this case rituals) which are ahistorical in their content.

You asked about my stance ... well there it is.

I think this is a classically-Mormon description of revelation. I like it.

[mfbukowski]

There is inspired content, but EVERY BIT of that inspired content came through naturalistic elements available in Joseph Smith's environment. Joseph Smith's form of revelation is no different, and for large part of the same magnitude, as God is willing and able to bestow on each and every one of his children. IMHO that is exactly how God has, does, and likely always will act in this world, through natural law, which we have a good grasp on a this point in time. I expect to find COMPLETELY naturalistic avenues for all the inspiration endowed by God. This methodology is messy, and has the obvious problem of delivering religious texts (and in this case rituals) which are ahistorical in their content.

You asked about my stance ... well there it is.

And I appreciate the frank answer! It is an interesting point of view; as I see it the problem of "ahistorical content" is not the only problem, but the very definition of "inspiration" itself.

Of course another troublesome definition might be the meaning of "naturalistic". Can we have naturalistic events for example which are not yet explained? Just as say, television may appear miraculous to a pre-technological population?

What of personal revelation confirming alleged "truths" which are disconfirmed by others personal revelation, perhaps contrasting an Evangelical's personal witness of the truth of his faith, with that of a Mormon? How are both of those "naturalistic"?

Obviously that is a deviation from the thread topic- but I am curious. Should you decide to answer, I won't carry the discussion further here, but perhaps we can save it for another thread.

The reason I am interested is that we might be quite close in point of view after all, and I would just like to make a mental note to discuss it further when appropriate.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

Actually, the issue is significant. But that's not the point I was making.

I am trying to get the masonic-temple theorists to grasp the distinction between an overt and explicit ascent ritual like the LDS Endowment, and a non-explicitly ascent ritual like the first three degrees of Masonry. It's like pulling teeth to get anyone to actually recognize and clearly admit there is a distinction, let alone recognize its possible implications.

The implications of that distinction can be debated later--based on further evidence and analysis. But no coherent discussion can occur until that distinction is recognized. We started the discussion with the assertion that my insistence that there is a distinction was "ridiculous" and completely disproven. We seem to have advanced to the point where now it is obvious, but unimportant and irrelevant. It's a bit of progress, but it's baby-steps.

And nothing is unavoidable.

So, that would be a “No”? No, you have no ascent text that includes signs and tokens.

What possible significance could there be in a common religious theme of returning to God—including angels escorting the righteous dead into heaven? We are supposed to ignore the more salient parallels for this?

I would grant that such parallels might be of interest to Mormons (for theological considerations), but they in no way translate to the apologetic (historical) use you are trying to make of them. To quote you:

“This seems so patently obvious to me that I am perplexed why some people can't see it.”

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[George Miller]

And I appreciate the frank answer! It is an interesting point of view; as I see it the problem of "ahistorical content" is not the only problem, but the very definition of "inspiration" itself.

Of course another troublesome definition might be the meaning of "naturalistic". Can we have naturalistic events for example which are not yet explained? Just as say, television may appear miraculous to a pre-technological population?

What of personal revelation confirming alleged "truths" which are disconfirmed by others personal revelation, perhaps contrasting an Evangelical's personal witness of the truth of his faith, with that of a Mormon? How are both of those "naturalistic"?

Obviously that is a deviation from the thread topic- but I am curious. Should you decide to answer, I won't carry the discussion further here, but perhaps we can save it for another thread.

The reason I am interested is that we might be quite close in point of view after all, and I would just like to make a mental note to discuss it further when appropriate.

Gift to daughter for her 1st birthday, end my participation in this thread so I can put all my mental and emotional faculties on here. Toodles you awesome bunch people. I would be more than happy to chat with you on this topic backchannel. PM me and I will give you my email address.

[Mike Reed]

Mike and I have had a few rather long discussions about the Swedenborgian Rite, and he has in fact done some research in that area. If I remember the institution at which he is doing his Ph.D. work has a rather extensive library of works in the Swedenborgian vain.

Right. We have a Swedenborgian school that is part of the University's consortium. One professor from that school is teaching a transcendentalism course I am taking. I mentioned a couple times in this thread even, that I needed to complete my readings on (or do homework on) "American Transcendendalism." If you've done much study on the emergence of this movement, mfbukowski, you would know that Swedenborgianism was a major influence. If you'd like to learn more, google search Sampson Reed and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson's essays also provide great deal of commentary related to Swedenborgianism, and on Emanuel Swedenborg himself. See for example his essay "Swedenborg; or, the Mystic."

Edited October 11, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

So, that would be a “No”? No, you have no ascent text that includes signs and tokens.

What possible significance could there be in a common religious theme of returning to God—including angels escorting the righteous dead into heaven? We are supposed to ignore the more salient parallels for this?

I would grant that such parallels might be of interest to Mormons (for theological considerations), but they in no way translate to the apologetic (historical) use you are trying to make of them. To quote you:

“This seems so patently obvious to me that I am perplexed why some people can't see it.”

Of course there are. There's lots of stuff like that.

But that's NOT the point here.

Do you agree with the distinction I raised?

I'm not talking about the implications. Simply that there is a distinction between explicit ascent ritual in the LDS temple endowment vs. a lack of explicit ascent in the first three degrees of Masonry.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Mike Reed]

Of course there are. There's lots of stuff like that.

But that's NOT the point here.

Do you agree with the distinction I raised.

Do I see and understand that you are splitting a hair? Yes I do. But the fact remains that what you have split is a "single" hair plucked from the head of freemasonry. Do I agree with you splitting the hair? No, I don't. In my view, your hairsplitting provides nothing meaningful to the discussion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Has anyone else noticed that my thread immediately went off on a tangent never to return? I still have several outstanding questions about how far I can go in talking about the temple and my personal feelings about the experience.

Yes, I noticed that at about page 2 or 3.

Ask your questions. I am sure if it is an issue you will get a warning. Seeming as you are in good standing, imho, I cannot imagine you getting a ban off the bat.

[mfbukowski]

Right. We have a Swedenborgian school that is part of the University's consortium. One professor from that school is teaching a transcendentalism course I am taking. I mentioned a couple times in this thread even, that I needed to complete my readings on (or do homework on) "American Transcendendalism." If you've done much study on the emergence of this movement, mfbukowski, you would know that Swedenborgianism was a major influence. If you'd like to learn more, google search Sampson Reed and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson's essays also provide great deal of commentary related to Swedenborgianism, and on Emanuel Swedenborg himself. See for example his essay "Swedenborg; or, the Mystic."

Uh, sure.

I am quite familiar with Swedenborg through my studies of Williams James, as well as with Emerson. I have studied American philosophy for 40 years.

A friend of mine was married in a Swedenborgian service in the Wayfarer's Chapel It's a beautiful place and they are beautiful people.

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I noticed that at about page 2 or 3.

Ask your questions. I am sure if it is an issue you will get a warning. Seeming as you are in good standing, imho, I cannot imagine you getting a ban off the bat.

But we can all hope!

(just kidding- Tarski- good to see you back!)

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Bill Hamblin]

Do I see and understand that you are splitting a hair? Yes I do. But the fact remains that what you have split is a "single" hair plucked from the head of freemasonry. Do I agree with you splitting the hair? No, I don't. In my view, your hairsplitting provides nothing meaningful to the discussion.

The fact that you don't understand the implications is actually not very surprising. But I am really astonished that if my point is so extraordinarily insignificant and meaningless as you claim, that you simply refuse to clearly admit that it's a distinction.

Publish your paper and maybe I'll explain it to you in more depth.

[wenglund]

Do I see and understand that you are splitting a hair? Yes I do. But the fact remains that what you have split is a "single" hair plucked from the head of freemasonry. Do I agree with you splitting the hair? No, I don't. In my view, your hairsplitting provides nothing meaningful to the discussion.

The road of parallelamania is often paved with minimized and dismissed important distinctions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Do I see and understand that you are splitting a hair? Yes I do. But the fact remains that what you have split is a "single" hair plucked from the head of freemasonry. Do I agree with you splitting the hair? No, I don't. In my view, your hairsplitting provides nothing meaningful to the discussion.

It's a significant, significant difference. Your case cannot survive without acknowledging it. It is precisely what separates "your side" from "ours" and goes to the root of the issue.

Just pragmatically, if you don't address this you won't convince anybody here. The entire point is that Joseph "upped" the context to directly address theosis.

Different context, totally different significance, totally different meaning. Ignore it if you like, but doing so ignores the central issue.

[Mike Reed]

The road of parallelamania is often paved with minimized and dismissed important distinctions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And the apologetic path with distinctions without meaningful differences.

[mfbukowski]

And the apologetic path with distinctions without meaningful differences.

Like it or not, you are engaged in apologetics. That deals in PERSUASION. If you don't understand the way the other side sees it, you aren't going to persuade anyone.

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski