Temple Talk Guidelines

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Don't you understand? Guys on Mike's side are unbiased scholars. Guys not on Mike's side are biased apologists. I hope that clarifies things.

[mfbukowski]

Don't you understand? Guys on Mike's side are unbiased scholars. Guys not on Mike's side are biased apologists. I hope that clarifies things.

Gosh, thanks.

I never saw it that way before.

[Mike Reed]

It's a significant, significant difference.

I don't think it is. The distinction doesn't undermine mine and George's positions in the slightest, and the final remarks of my presentations underscore why this is so.

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

Why do you say that?

Just pragmatically, if you don't address this you won't convince anybody here.

Is this one of those times where you presume to speak for everybody? BTW... I don't expect to convince you. Not yet anyway. And not on this forum.

The entire point is that Joseph upped the context to directly address theosis.

Why do you say that? Implicitly or explicitly, apotheosis was perceived in masomic rituals.

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

Ignore it? Just because I don't agree or understand doesn't mean I am ignoring.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

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.

Do you understand what I mean by "meaningful"?

mean·ing·ful

- adjective 1. full of meaning, **significance**, purpose, or **value**.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

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.

I’m not talking about some rarified definition of signs and tokens; I’m talking about a direct and clear parallel—even plagiarism.

Do you agree that ascent is too general a concept to be meaningful?

Moreover, do you agree that there are explicit parallels between Mormon endowment and Masonic ritual that are absent from your ascent text?

The question you ask makes about as much sense as asking if the Masonic ritual mentions the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms?

The signs and tokens function as “passes” in both rituals. The only change is the background story.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, yeah. The background story is the meat.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I’m not talking about some rarified definition of signs and tokens; I’m talking about a direct and clear parallel—even plagiarism.

Do you agree that ascent is too general a concept to be meaningful?

Moreover, do you agree that there are explicit parallels between Mormon endowment and Masonic ritual that are absent from your ascent text?

The question you ask makes about as much sense as asking if the Masonic ritual mentions the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms?

The signs and tokens function as “passes” in both rituals. The only change is the background story.

What has this got to do with the question of whether the first three degrees of Masonry are not an explicit ascent ritual?

This is one simple question, among many, about the alleged relationship between between Masonry and the Endowment. There are lots of them. We don't need to address every issue at once. Mike claimed my position was ridiculous. He now actually agrees with my real position, but says its irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

It's significant

No it isn't

Yes it is.

What a waste of time! The point is, I say it's significant. You are not going to convince me of anything until you SHOW me how I am wrong.

Your arguments are totally irrelevant to my life as long as you don't address that point.

I'm not going to waste any more time. There's no argumentation here, no evidence for your case, nothing. All it is, is repeated assertions.

An entirely different question which no one will address is what difference does it make if Joseph totally copied different elements from different sources, but put them together in a different way.

That cannot of course be shown, but even if it could, it would still create a totally new context. But as Bill has pointed out, there are many such points to discuss but we are getting nowhere.

I don't know what you are trying to convince anyone here about- you are all wasting your time. I will be back if anything substantive or meaningful gets said. That dictionary entry really was an excellent point, Mike. Nothing "meaningful" here, that's for sure.

[Bill Hamblin]

For those interested, I've put a couple of my slides showing Greek dexiosis (ritual right handclasp). The "Deification of Antiochus" is particularly interesting since it shows the celestial ascent of king Antiochus I of Commagene (in Turkey) being accepted as god by Hercules with the right handclasp. Link to dexiosis slides

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.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

That's a rather odd and idiosyncratic position. What, precisely, would be different if God had inspired JS from completely natural avenues, vs. JS simply making it all up from completely natural avenues?

I can see why you get along with atheist Mike Reed about Masonic origins. You can come up with a unified explanation that Mike can say is completely invented by JS, and you can say is completely inspired from precisely the same sources.

This seems like an extraordinarily unfruitful view of revelation.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Awesome! Happy birthday to her. Birthday girls are much better than internet debates.

[Bill Hamblin]

Do you understand what I mean by "meaningful"?

mean·ing·ful

- adjective 1. full of meaning, **significance**, purpose, or **value**.

Antonym of mean·ing·ful: Trying to have a discussion with Mike!

[Bernard Gui]

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.

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.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/ascp.html

Then we went up to the seventh heaven, and I saw an old man [...] light and whose garment was white. His throne, which is in the seventh heaven, was brighter than the sun by seven times. The old man spoke, saying to me, "Where are you going, Paul? O blessed one and the one who was set apart from his mother`s womb." But I looked at the Spirit, and he was nodding his head, saying to me, "Speak with him!". And I replied, saying to the old man, "I am going to the place from which I came." And the old man responded to me, "Where are you from?" But I replied, saying, "I am going down to the world of the dead in order to lead captive the captivity that was led captive in the captivity of Babylon." The old man replied to me saying, "How will you be able to get away from me? Look and see the principalities and authorities." The Spirit spoke, saying, "Give him the sign that you have, and he will open for you." And then I gave him the sign. He turned his face downwards to his creation and to those who are his own authorities. And then the <seventh> heaven opened and we went up to the Ogdoad. And I saw the twelve apostles. They greeted me, and we went up to the ninth heaven. I greeted all those who were in the ninth heaven, and we went up to the tenth heaven. And I greeted my fellow spirits.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I find many similarities between the LDS Endowment and the explicit ascent ritual described in the Apocalypse of Paul. A child (the Spirit) asking Paul for his name, then leading and coaching him on his ascent, multiple heavens, awakening the mind, knowing the hidden things in those that are visible, being directed to and gaining knowledge from the apostles, looking up and being greeted by the approaching apostles, gazing down at creation, the apostles assisting in the creation, angels resembling gods, being judged at the gate, toll collectors guarding the gates, judged souls passing into bodies, white garments, Paul returning to the place he came from (heaven), answering questions asked by authoritative angels, being coached to give signs for passage through the gate, and greeting the fellow spirits in the highest heaven.

There's even an angel holding an iron rod.

Bernard

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

For those interested, I've put a couple of my slides showing Greek dexiosis (ritual right handclasp). The "Deification of Antiochus" is particularly interesting since it shows the celestial ascent of king Antiochus I of Commagene (in Turkey) being accepted as god by Hercules with the right handclasp. Link to dexiosis slides

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.

Wow!

[mfbukowski]

This seems like an extraordinarily unfruitful view of revelation.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how "revelation" can be "naturalistic" without redefining one or both terms to the point of rendering them meaningless in their ordinary usage.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

What has this got to do with the question of whether the first three degrees of Masonry are not an explicit ascent ritual?

This is one simple question, among many, about the alleged relationship between between Masonry and the Endowment. There are lots of them. We don't need to address every issue at once. Mike claimed my position was ridiculous. He now actually agrees with my real position, but says its irrelevant.

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?

You dismissed my questions a little too hastily. So let me reissue and explain them:

I’m not talking about some rarified definition of signs and tokens; I’m talking about a direct and clear parallel—even plagiarism.

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.

Do you agree that ascent is too general a concept to be meaningful?

This is in response to your question: “Do you agree with the distinction I raised?”

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.

Moreover, do you agree that there are explicit parallels between Mormon endowment and Masonic ritual that are absent from your ascent text?

This is simple.

The question you ask makes about as much sense as asking if the Masonic ritual mentions the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms?

This is an important criticism of your observation that Masonic ritual is without explicit ascension to heaven motif. It also doesn’t have other Mormon elements, of course. So when it was Mormonized by JS, why would the addition of an ascension element be surprising. Moreover, you don’t feel compelled to find in your ascension text mention of the three Mormon heavens, so why implication of ascension need additional explanation? It doesn’t unless you are attempting to obfuscate the issue.

The signs and tokens function as “passes” in both rituals. The only change is the background story.

This change carried with it the ascension motif and there is no need to go elsewhere to explain it.

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?

[mfbukowski]

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?

Game over.

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

Edited October 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Tarski]

For those interested, I've put a couple of my slides showing Greek dexiosis (ritual right handclasp). The "Deification of Antiochus" is particularly interesting since it shows the celestial ascent of king Antiochus I of Commagene (in Turkey) being accepted as god by Hercules with the right handclasp. Link to dexiosis slides

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.

Are crying and sucking (or pooping) found in any known religious rituals?

Although not manifest immediately after birth, humans universally have an instinct for language. Further, languages have universal abstract features (deep structures) such as nouns and verbs (See "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker). We should not fail to notice that religious rituals almost uniformly employ nouns and verbs.

We can also expect to see a lot of eating, drinking, walking, sitting, pointing and gesturing.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Tarski

[Senator]

Are crying and sucking (or pooping) found in any known religious rituals?

Although not manifest immediately after birth, humans universally have an instinct for language. Further, languages have universal abstract features (deep structures) such as nouns and verbs (See "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker). We should not fail to notice that religious rituals almost uniformly employ nouns and verbs.

We can also expect to see a lot of eating, drinking, walking, sitting, pointing and gesturing.

My thought exactly!

Yet he got a Wow! for this astonishing observation!

[wenglund]

My thought exactly!

Yet he got a Wow! for this astonishing observation!

The literalistic mind can be so unimaginative and limited at times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

George, Mike

To give a voice from another member of the chuch, let me say I've appreciated your thoughts and sharing a bit of your upcoming research.

George, I especially appreciated your thoughts regarding your understanding of revelation and inspiration. That involved a bit more personal reflection (testimony, perhaps) which you didn't need to offer, but was rather induced by mfbukowski. (who then had the nerve to castigate even that!) I don't know where the hostility is coming from, but I feel it's been out of line.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your upcoming publication with interest.

[Bill Hamblin]

Are crying and sucking (or pooping) found in any known religious rituals?

Although not manifest immediately after birth, humans universally have an instinct for language. Further, languages have universal abstract features (deep structures) such as nouns and verbs (See "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker). We should not fail to notice that religious rituals almost uniformly employ nouns and verbs.

We can also expect to see a lot of eating, drinking, walking, sitting, pointing and gesturing.

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.

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

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

[Tarski]

The literalistic mind can be so unimaginative and limited at times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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