Symbols

[Uncle Dale]

I remember reading something about the beehive having ties to Masonry along with the lion.  

 

You would just about have to be a 33rd degree freemason, and

a student of all the lore and tradition inherent in the upper degrees

of the two rites, in order to speak with sufficient knowledge on this

sort of topic -- and, even then, other masonic scholars might well

disagree. But the masonic beehive means pretty much what it did

to the early LDS -- industry, cooperation, obedience, loyalty, etc.

 

Coupling the beehive with "holiness to the Lord" adds a whole extra

level of meaning, however. The masons claim to be merely the meek

"handmaiden" of religion -- its forerunner, as John prepared the way

for Jesus. But the masons cannot be accepting of members of all

different kinds of religions, and still promote (and enforce) the motto

"holiness to the Lord" -- it is Judeo-Christian or philoSemitic, and

has a direct tie to the old High Priests of the Jerusalem Temple.

 

In a roundabout way, freemasonry thus appropriates that high priestly

role and authority. Is their beehive merely symbolic of a single, lower

level "blue lodge," or of a royal arch chapter, or of the Grand Lodge,

or of all Freemasonry -- or, perhaps, of the entire human race?

 

Questions to ponder.

 

And while we are on the topic of symbols, folks might wish to consult

the old Brigham Young photo, in which his stick-pin is a square and

compass, encircling a capital G. -- Not an ornament that would have

brought a smile to the face of any mason of his day and age.

 

UD

[HappyJackWagon]

Kind of like those stupid physicists who think there is still more out there to learn! What dupes!

Only the ignorant like to stay that way.

The difference is that physicists are taught the laws of physics and then theorize and test those theories.

At the temple no one explains what the "symbols" mean. We're supposed to figure that out for ourselves. So we can theorize what they might mean but there is no way to test or grow in knowledge beyond our own personal theories which could hold some truth or could be completely false.

[Mars]

The difference is that physicists are taught the laws of physics and then theorize and test those theories.

At the temple no one explains what the "symbols" mean. We're supposed to figure that out for ourselves. So we can theorize what they might mean but there is no way to test or grow in knowledge beyond our own personal theories which could hold some truth or could be completely false.

 

I don't understand your position.

 

- You use quote marks around the word symbol.  Why?

 

- You also seem to imply that testing or growing beyond our own personal theories is a negative product of the situation where the symbols' correct interpretation is not provided.  Do I understand you properly?

 

- Are you dissatisfied with the current situation?

 

- If yes to the above, are you attempting to have your hearers see the shortcomings of the current situation?

Edited January 6, 2015 by Mars

[Mars]

~snip~

 

And while we are on the topic of symbols, folks might wish to consult

the old Brigham Young photo, in which his stick-pin is a square and

compass, encircling a capital G. -- Not an ornament that would have

brought a smile to the face of any mason of his day and age.

 

UD

 

I'm aware of the conflict between Masons in Utah and BY and the early Mormons in the SLC area.  It was not my understanding that this malcontent flowed over to all Masons everywhere in America.  Could you point me to some sources where the latter is established?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

- You use quote marks around the word symbol.  Why?

I put quotes around symbols because I think we tend to view things as symbols even though they were never intended as such. For example if I see symbolism in the color of Eve's frock, where there was no original intent for symbolism to exist, I'm creating a symbol and it's definition only for myself and it hold no real, lasting, eternal value. So I used quotes around symbols because some are obviously intended but others are seen where symbolism doesn't really exist.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Mars]

I put quotes around symbols because I think we tend to view things as symbols even though they were never intended as such. For example if I see symbolism in the color of Eve's frock, where there was no original intent for symbolism to exist, I'm creating a symbol and it's definition only for myself and it hold no real, lasting, eternal value. So I used quotes around symbols because some are obviously intended but others are seen where symbolism doesn't really exist.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

It does.

[Uncle Dale]

I'm aware of the conflict between Masons in Utah and BY and the early Mormons in the SLC area.  It was not my understanding that this malcontent flowed over to all Masons everywhere in America.  Could you point me to some sources where the latter is established?

 

My reasoning is based upon reading instances during the

19th century, in which a Freemason believed he was encountering

another Freemason (otherwise a stranger) based upon a particular

style of handshake, a peculiar phrase, or displayed ornamentation.

 

Of course the "jewels" of the lodge would not thus be displayed in

public, but occasionally Freemasons did wear square-and-compass

rings, etc. A person who was not a Freemason, who wore such

markings would present a problem to any loyal member of the Craft.

 

But Brigham Young's wearing Masonic emblems presented a special

problem -- not just because he was the leader of many thousands

of devoted followers, but because he continued to make public use

of such symbols after the charter of the Nauvoo Lodge had been

revoked by the Illinois Masonic officials in Quincy.

 

While individual members of the Nauvoo Lodge might be re-instated,

under certain conditions, the Mormons as a group had been kicked

out -- and to re-enter Masonry, Brigham would have been required to

undergo a specific process and ritual, which he obviously did not.

 

Thus, the hopeful "brother," at first thinking he had spotted a fellow

member of the Craft, would have dropped his friendly smile, as soon

as he was informed that the guy sporting a square-and-compass was

(in the eyes of the Illinois Grand Lodge) no longer a member, and thus

not entitled to affect such a public appearance.

 

UD

Edited January 6, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Mars]

My reasoning is

 

~snipped for brevity~

 

and thus not entitled to affect such a public appearance.

 

UD

 

Thank you.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Mars

[mfbukowski]

The difference is that physicists are taught the laws of physics and then theorize and test those theories.

At the temple no one explains what the "symbols" mean. We're supposed to figure that out for ourselves. So we can theorize what they might mean but there is no way to test or grow in knowledge beyond our own personal theories which could hold some truth or could be completely false.

Let me give you a clue.  Religion IS "personal theories" which give your life meaning.  Nothing more nothing less.

 

It's a little hard to empirically test religion.  But that's ok.  We don't have to any more than we have to test the idea that "murder is wrong".

 

I have an idea.  Let's murder 100 people and do a double blind study to see how many people think that's wrong!  What a great idea!

 

But what if all those people who just THINK it's wrong are in fact WRONG?  What if it's actually right.??

 

Your personal theory on whether or not murder is wrong could hold some truth or be completely false.

 

While you are at it, throw in rape and child molestation.  How can you know that those are wrong!

 

(yes this is sarcasm)

[mfbukowski]

I put quotes around symbols because I think we tend to view things as symbols even though they were never intended as such. For example if I see symbolism in the color of Eve's frock, where there was no original intent for symbolism to exist, I'm creating a symbol and it's definition only for myself and it hold no real, lasting, eternal value. So I used quotes around symbols because some are obviously intended but others are seen where symbolism doesn't really exist.

 

Does that answer your question?

Suppose I read Shakespeare and find great truths which were "not intended".

 

Why is that relevant?

 

How does one KNOW what the artist intended or not?  Can one be right or wrong about that?

 

5. Intentions

The traditional form of art criticism was biographical and sociological, taking into account the conceptions of the artist and the history of the traditions within which the artist worked. But in the twentieth century a different, more scientific and ahistorical form of literary criticism grew up in the United States and Britain: The New Criticism. Like the Russian Formalists and French Structuralists in the same period, the New Critics regarded what could be gleaned from the work of art alone as relevant to its assessment, but their specific position received a much-discussed philosophical defense by William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in 1946. Beardsley saw the position as an extension of “The Aesthetic Point of View”; Wimsatt was a practical critic personally engaged in the new line of approach. In their essay “The Intentional Fallacy,” Wimsatt and Beardsley claimed “the design or intention of the artist is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art.” It was not always available, since it was often difficult to obtain, but, in any case, it was not appropriately available, according to them, unless there was evidence for it internal to the finished work of art. Wimsatt and Beardsley allowed such forms of evidence for a writer’s intentions, but would allow nothing external to the given text.

This debate over intention in the literary arts has raged with full force into more recent times. A contemporary of Wimsatt and Beardsley, E.D. Hirsch, has continued to maintain his “intentionalist” point of view. Against him, Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels have taken up an ahistorical position. Frank Cioffi, one of the original writers who wrote a forceful reply to Wimsatt and Beardsley, aligned himself with neither camp, believing different cases were “best read” sometimes just as, sometimes other than as, the artist knowingly intended them. One reason he rejected intention, at times, was because he believed the artist might be unconscious of the full significance of the artwork.

A similar debate arises in other art forms besides Literature, for instance Architecture, Theater, and Music, although it has caused less professional comment in these arts, occurring more at the practical level in terms of argument between “purists” and “modernizers.” Purists want to maintain a historical orientation to these art forms, while modernizers want to make things more available for contemporary use. The debate also has a more practical aspect in connection with the visual arts. For it arises in the question of what devalues fakes and forgeries, and by contrast puts a special value on originality. There have been several notable frauds perpetrated by forgers of artworks and their associates. The question is: if the surface appearance is much the same, what especial value is there in the first object? Nelson Goodman was inclined to think that one can always locate a sufficient difference by looking closely at the visual appearance. But even if one cannot, there remain the different histories of the original and the copy, and also the different intentions behind them.

The relevance of such intentions in visual art has entered very prominently into philosophical discussion. Arthur Danto, in his 1964 discussion of “The Artworld,” was concerned with the question of how the atmosphere of theory can alter how we see artworks. This situation has arisen in fact with respect to two notable paintings which look the same, as Timothy Binkley has explained, namely Leonardo’s original “Mona Lisa” and Duchamp’s joke about it, called “L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved.” The two works look ostensibly the same, but Duchamp, one needs to know, had also produced a third work, “L.H.O.O.Q.,” which was a reproduction of the "Mona Lisa," with some graffiti on it: a goatee and moustache. He was alluding in that work to the possibility that the sitter for the "Mona Lisa" might have been a young male, given the stories about Leonardo’s homosexuality. With the graffiti removed the otherwise visually similar works are still different, since Duchamp’s title, and the history of its production, alters what we think about his piece.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aestheti/#H5

 

If one pronounces the letters LHOOQ in French, it sounds much like the phrase ""Elle a chaud au cul"  which roughly translates to "she has a hot bottom". 

 

So the point Duchamp was making was that the context gives the symbol meaning.  That is paralleled in the philosophy of Wittgenstein who's entire life was spent in working on the relationship of symbols and context.

Edited January 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It's a little hard to empirically test religion.

True. But with regard to the temple symbols there isn't even an authority teaching the meaning of these symbols.

 

Your example about testing murder is ridiculous. While we may not test the morality of murder in the way you describe we do have authoritative sources, scriptures, prophets, that tell us murder is wrong. Where are the authoritative sources defining each symbol?

 

While we can find meaning in works beyond the intent of the author, it seems like a stretch to say we can find meaning in symbols the author didn't intend, IF the author is God. If the author is not God then there is no problem. But if God is the author of symbols in the temple and he's trying to teach me things through these symbols, but I apply meaning to words or actions or symbols that he did not intend, I may lose the truth of what he was actually teaching.

[ERayR]

True. But with regard to the temple symbols there isn't even an authority teaching the meaning of these symbols.

 

Your example about testing murder is ridiculous. While we may not test the morality of murder in the way you describe we do have authoritative sources, scriptures, prophets, that tell us murder is wrong. Where are the authoritative sources defining each symbol?

 

While we can find meaning in works beyond the intent of the author, it seems like a stretch to say we can find meaning in symbols the author didn't intend, IF the author is God. If the author is not God then there is no problem. But if God is the author of symbols in the temple and he's trying to teach me things through these symbols, but I apply meaning to words or actions or symbols that he did not intend, I may lose the truth of what he was actually teaching.

 

Oh it is a creed you are looking for.  There are a few creedal churches out there.  Help yourself.

[mfbukowski]

True. But with regard to the temple symbols there isn't even an authority teaching the meaning of these symbols.

 

Your example about testing murder is ridiculous. While we may not test the morality of murder in the way you describe we do have authoritative sources, scriptures, prophets, that tell us murder is wrong. Where are the authoritative sources defining each symbol?

 

While we can find meaning in works beyond the intent of the author, it seems like a stretch to say we can find meaning in symbols the author didn't intend, IF the author is God. If the author is not God then there is no problem. But if God is the author of symbols in the temple and he's trying to teach me things through these symbols, but I apply meaning to words or actions or symbols that he did not intend, I may lose the truth of what he was actually teaching.

The problem is that you are not skeptical enough and think that "authorities" actually have authority that you did not give them by believing in them.

 

Welcome to spirituality.

 

You get to make your own decisions and figure these things out for yourself.  Isn't it great?  Why accept anyone as an "authority" about anything?

 

That is the bottom line I think for you.  Why believe the Bible?  Why believe the church authorities?  How do you know murder is wrong?  Do you really need to be led like a child for your whole life?  Did you miss your teenage years of rebellion? 

 

I have a better idea.  I will be your authority.  Just listen to me and do what I say and you will be fine.  Trust me. 

[mfbukowski]

Oh it is a creed you are looking for.  There are a few creedal churches out there.  Help yourself.

Oh it's RELIGION you want!  There are many churches who will teach you the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

[mfbukowski]

As I said before, if we had a symbol manual we would not need symbols at all.

 

Words and letters are symbols- you could just write out the meaning in words just as easily if you wanted it explicitly stated.

Edited January 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

True. But with regard to the temple symbols there isn't even an authority teaching the meaning of these symbols.

 

Your example about testing murder is ridiculous. While we may not test the morality of murder in the way you describe we do have authoritative sources, scriptures, prophets, that tell us murder is wrong. Where are the authoritative sources defining each symbol?

 

While we can find meaning in works beyond the intent of the author, it seems like a stretch to say we can find meaning in symbols the author didn't intend, IF the author is God. If the author is not God then there is no problem. But if God is the author of symbols in the temple and he's trying to teach me things through these symbols, but I apply meaning to words or actions or symbols that he did not intend, I may lose the truth of what he was actually teaching.

 

What does a smiley face mean?

[mfbukowski]

"This token means this and this.  And when you do it this way- see how it incorporates this and this and includes that and that on top of this and this?"

 

Why even have a temple?  Just take it home in a book and read it.  No work, no individual revelation.  Take a pill and feel the spirit.

 

NOW you are talkin!

 

Oh wait. 

 

We HAVE a book and still need revelation?   We don't read the book?

 

Dang.

 

I knew there was a catch!

[ERayR]

"This token means this and this.  And when you do it this way- see how it incorporates this and this and includes that and that on top of this and this?"

 

Why even have a temple?  Just take it home in a book and read it.  No work, no individual revelation.  Take a pill and feel the spirit.

 

NOW you are talkin!

 

Oh wait. 

 

We HAVE a book and still need revelation?   We don't read the book?

 

Dang.

 

I knew there was a catch!

 

I don't have time to read what with all the time it takes to post on the board.

[Mars]

I don't mean to trivialize your frustration, HappyJackWagon.  I understand the brain has a tendency to find sense and meaning in randomness, and this can induce a person to conclude - reasonably, I might add - that if we can find meaning in white noise, which by definition has no meaning, then how is the Temple Endowment any different?

 

I don't think it's fair to characterize the symbolism, teaching, and implication of the Endowment as similar to random events that the brain tries to ascribe meaning where there is none.  It's a reductionist argument, imo, though I freely admit I'm no logician.

[Mars]

True. But with regard to the temple symbols there isn't even an authority teaching the meaning of these symbols.

 

Your example about testing murder is ridiculous. While we may not test the morality of murder in the way you describe we do have authoritative sources, scriptures, prophets, that tell us murder is wrong. Where are the authoritative sources defining each symbol?

 

While we can find meaning in works beyond the intent of the author, it seems like a stretch to say we can find meaning in symbols the author didn't intend, IF the author is God. If the author is not God then there is no problem. But if God is the author of symbols in the temple and he's trying to teach me things through these symbols, but I apply meaning to words or actions or symbols that he did not intend, I may lose the truth of what he was actually teaching.

 

I believe God allows us to be wrong, and that it's no sin.

 

I was POSITIVE the Spirit was directing me to go back and knock - a second time - on the door of a very loud and unhappy woman while a missionary in France.  My companion thought I was nuts.  I couldn't shake the feeling, and I wanted to be the good little missionary who always did what the Spirit directed even if it wasn't what I thought was right.

 

After about 10 minutes of tracting we started back to her door.  My companion again reiterated his opinion on the matter, though this time a bit more crudely.

 

I knocked.

 

If she was unhappy the first time, she was royally pissed the second time.  She berated me for a good 5 minutes for not listening to people nor respecting their privacy.

 

So yeah.  I was wrong: that was not the Spirit telling me to go back and knock the second time.  Kind of a dumb example, I guess, but getting it wrong here and there is a good thing.  It helps me understand what is the Spirit and what's just my longing or emotional state.

 

I definitely did right in acting on what I thought was a prompting.  Outside of examples of people feeling prompted to do harm or some other equally absurd situation, when you feel a prompting, see a symbol, or try to understand a thing - holding out hope that one day you'll know more and be ready to discard your current understanding - you'll 'grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day,' as D&C 50 says.

 

That's just me, though.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Mars

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical enough and think that "authorities" actually have authority that you did not give them by believing in them.

 

Welcome to spirituality.

 

You get to make your own decisions and figure these things out for yourself.  Isn't it great?  Why accept anyone as an "authority" about anything?

 

That is the bottom line I think for you.  Why believe the Bible?  Why believe the church authorities?  How do you know murder is wrong?  Do you really need to be led like a child for your whole life?  Did you miss your teenage years of rebellion? 

No. I think I'm plenty skeptical (Smiley face is a symbol for just kidding, or don't take offense, or can't you tell I'm funny?...)

 

I hear what you're saying Mfbukowski. But when we go to the temple are we not intended to receive a specific endowment of knowledge from a God sanctioned authority? And isn't that knowledge intended to be somewhat universal for all of God's children? And if so, wouldn't it be helpful to be led in a clear path of understanding instead of each individual creating their own religion based on their personal perceptions and interpretations of what may or may not be a symbolic message? Maybe not. If we really are all as free as you suggest to discover and decide for ourselves, there sure seems to be plenty of push for orthodoxy in the church which would suggest a firm doctrine we should believe. In the church we seem to place great importance on authority, as we sustain the authority the church has set up.

 

If you're suggesting we should ignore all external authority and become an authority unto ourselves, I can go with that, but I don't think the church would approve.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I believe God allows us to be wrong, and that it's no sin.

Mars, thanks for your thoughts. I partially agree with you. God must be extremely forgiving or we're all toast.

 

But, misinterpreting teachings can have negative consequences. For you, knocking on the door again, a simple berating. But what if I go to the temple and view and interpret symbols in a way that leads me to believe that God really intends for me to practice plural marriage, and I either start to practice polygamy or teach it at church? Would there be consequences to my church membership? Most likely. Why? Because I misinterpreted symbols because there was an absense of authoritative teaching about the symbol.

[Mars]

Mars, thanks for your thoughts. I partially agree with you. God must be extremely forgiving or we're all toast.

 

But, misinterpreting teachings can have negative consequences. For you, knocking on the door again, a simple berating. But what if I go to the temple and view and interpret symbols in a way that leads me to believe that God really intends for me to practice plural marriage, and I either start to practice polygamy or teach it at church? Would there be consequences to my church membership? Most likely. Why? Because I misinterpreted symbols because there was an absense of authoritative teaching about the symbol.

 

Kind of an extreme example, but I get what you're saying.

[Calm]

Mars, thanks for your thoughts. I partially agree with you. God must be extremely forgiving or we're all toast.

 

But, misinterpreting teachings can have negative consequences. For you, knocking on the door again, a simple berating. But what if I go to the temple and view and interpret symbols in a way that leads me to believe that God really intends for me to practice plural marriage, and I either start to practice polygamy or teach it at church? Would there be consequences to my church membership? Most likely. Why? Because I misinterpreted symbols because there was an absense of authoritative teaching about the symbol.

It is not as if there is no other context within which to examine the symbols.

[mfbukowski]

I believe God allows us to be wrong, and that it's no sin.

 

I was POSITIVE the Spirit was directing me to go back and knock - a second time - on the door of a very loud and unhappy woman while a missionary in France.  My companion thought I was nuts.  I couldn't shake the feeling, and I wanted to be the good little missionary who always did what the Spirit directed even if it wasn't what I thought was right.

 

After about 10 minutes of tracting we started back to her door.  My companion again reiterated his opinion on the matter, though this time a bit more crudely.

 

I knocked.

 

If she was unhappy the first time, she was royally pissed the second time.  She berated me for a good 5 minutes for not listening to people nor respecting their privacy.

 

So yeah.  I was wrong: that was not the Spirit telling me to go back and knock the second time.  Kind of a dumb example, I guess, but getting it wrong here and there is a good thing.  It helps me understand what is the Spirit and what's just my longing or emotional state.

 

I definitely did right in acting on what I thought was a prompting.  Outside of examples of people feeling prompted to do harm or some other equally absurd situation, when you feel a prompting, see a symbol, or try to understand a thing - holding out hope that one day you'll know more and be ready to discard your current understanding - you'll 'grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day,' as D&C 50 says.

 

That's just me, though.

Since you still remember it, sounds like maybe you DID learn a valuable lesson anyway.