What Kind of Reality for the Plates, on a Tavesian Hypothesis?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This whole post is excellent, thanks for putting the timeline together and your vision of how things have played out philosophically and that interaction with religion and then the view into the future, and the problems we are faced with today.  I really loved it and I'm going to re-read this a few times.  Really helps me understand where you're coming from and I think there is so much wisdom here.  Thank you! 

Think about it.  Sectarian Christianity believes the gospel is Absolute and Unchangeable and yes, the central plan of salvation is like that.  So they believe that revelation is "once, forever" meaning that all we need for salvation is revealed in the bible- and we need no "new Bible".

IF that is true, why do we need prophets??   If our truth and practices never change- there is no need for prophets.

Yet the church teaches that we need prophets because our needs change, and God reveals new "truth" to help us- the Proclamation is a perfect, perfect example.

So how can Mormons therefore believe in eternal unchanging truth?   Usually the explanation shuffles around making meaningless distinctions, yet the LDS scriptures are quite clear that truth is "what is sweet to us" and can be revealed to each individual to provide for their needs.  D&C 93 says that truth exists in "spheres" or contexts and guess what- so does Wittgenstein and yes even Rorty.

Some testify that they have done the Moroni test and gotten a different answer and the usual answer apologists give,  since we believe supposedly in unchangeable truth,  is that they must have done it wrong.  Only we could possibly be right.

Yet they also affirm that God can give us revelation according to our needs- but apparently that only applies for those who agree with us.  But converts can get the Holy Ghost to find the church- but if they find another church it must not have been the Holy Ghost.   It is a mass of confusion

My answer is that sometimes we need perhaps a preparatory gospel message and grow into a better understanding of Christ- but that view is not possible for the absolutists.

So if we have prophets "truth" as taught by God to his children must change and not be "absolute"

Times change and we might need a new "Proclamation" as our needs and God's direction for us changes.   But Mormons still want their eternal unchangeable truth without noticing that these two needs are incompatible.

Either truth changes and we need prophets or truth does not change and we do not need prophets.   Take your pick- you can't have both!

The answer of course is a pragmatic approach- which is found perfectly stated in Alma 32- truth is what is sweet to our spirits and that which grows in our hearts.

That is an organic, evolutionary version of truth plan and simple.  Unchangeable truth does not "grow" in your heart- it is once and forever.

But do we see truth and changeable and organic and what grows in our hearts?   Of course not!   We are bogged in Neoplatonism and scientism and call organic growing truth "relativism".

You can't win for losing!

 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

When I said, “No, she didn’t postulate that…” I was agreeing with you; I'm using “that” as a determiner to reference my ideas and not hers (or yours), and explaining that I’ve been on a tangent.

Ahh. Sorry. Misunderstood you.

Quote

That there are better ways to do things doesn’t obviate that they were done in a manner that leaves us with less explicable or defensible results. Now I’m neither critiquing nor endorsing her model, only answering the OP as a thought experiment on “how might someone running with this idea understand the reality of the plates.” And in the process, finding some ancillary things of interest (to me) about how mortals and God work together.

Hence the reality of the plates could be seen as a form of virtual reality by someone who thinks Joseph made the ones he carried about and that he was a bonafide prophet of God.

I agree with that as the examples from platonism particularly theurgical platonism suggest. I just don't think they ultimately work though.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So we have examples of things manufactured by mortal human hands and touched by the finger of God to bring about His purposes, whether he endows them with meaning, intelligence or other kinds of power (to heal, to light, etc.). And we have God stimulating the imagination of mortal human beings to manufacture such things “according to the pattern given by the finger of God.”

 

Do we have examples where, not things, but rather ideas are "manufactured" by mortal minds and then touched by the finger of God to be made holy, or to be made His own – does He co-opt or appropriate ideas from a lesser intelligence as they exercise their agency in faith to do or make or think of something outside His expectation? Is the brother of Jared’s faith to see the finger of God an example of this? Is D&C 56:26-18 another example? To me that speaks to a very humble, yet amazingly self-assured God!

 

I think the trick is to become as humble and self-assured as God, and help others to become the same, no matter what we believe. Within the parameters of the covenants He has restored and  revealed, of course…

 

I think that is what personal revelation must be- or at least one possible way of looking at it.

Our needs are "manufactured" in our minds and we go to God for verification.  "Lord, I feel I should marry Susie,/ go to BYU, /be a dentist,/ go on a mission/ or feel that the gospel is true?"

Or "Lord, I feel that the Mesoamerican model is true" and offer that to the Lord.

Catholics have a wonderful sense of "offering up" trials and bad things that happen so that the Lord can sanctify their suffering as part of his purposes for them in their lives, though they might not understand God's purposes fully.

And I think once one truly gets this stuff and affirms finally with full confidence that we must not second-guess personal revelation and always act on it, that certitude comes.  Personal revelation is all we have to communicate with the Lord and to doubt it is to doubt our own best selves as BEING our best selves.

If we doubt ourselves, there is nothing left to be certain about because we ourselves are the creators of certainty.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think that is what personal revelation must be- or at least one possible way of looking at it.

Our needs are "manufactured" in our minds and we go to God for verification.  "Lord, I feel I should marry Susie,/ go to BYU, /be a dentist,/ go on a mission/ or feel that the gospel is true?"

Or "Lord, I feel that the Mesoamerican model is true" and offer that to the Lord.

Catholics have a wonderful sense of "offering up" trials and bad things that happen so that the Lord can sanctify their suffering as part of his purposes for them in their lives, though they might not understand God's purposes fully.

And I think once one truly gets this stuff and affirms finally with full confidence that we must not second-guess personal revelation and always act on it, that certitude comes.  Personal revelation is all we have to communicate with the Lord and to doubt it is to doubt our own best selves as BEING our best selves.

If we doubt ourselves, there is nothing left to be certain about because we ourselves are the creators of certainty.

I think that advancement in personal revelation is accompanied by an equilibrium of sorts: “Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss.” And even a reminder: “do not ask for that which you ought not.”

[CV75]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ahh. Sorry. Misunderstood you.

I agree with that as the examples from platonism particularly theurgical platonism suggest. I just don't think they ultimately work though.

Confess that I first only read the Conclusion of the paper, but upon reading more of it more closely to better understand your quote from it, can see that she drew parallels (perhaps not in the same way) with the brother of Jared as I did (and I drew other scriptural parallels as well). So it seems the thought experiment at least drew out similar observations and interpretations.

Mid-way through the paper she does refer to the plates as a "believed-in simulation" which to me says they evoked a virtual reality experience where the witnesses collectively saw what Joseph saw to their and Joseph's mutual satisfaction. On one hand, plates simply representing plates alone does not seem very theurgical. The plates representing an abstract object/concept (such as God having a covenant people on this continent with an imminent promise to fulfill, or a group/common witness of God's hand in the work) might allow a hint of platonism, but I'm not sure that a virtual reality experience fully qualifies as an abstract object.

But I suppose her idea can work if she means that Joseph made the plates for the purpose of evoking God's power to work through them and him to carry out his calling, but she doesn't seem to be saying precisely that even while pointing to the brother of Jared.

[kiwi57]

On 10/19/2017 at 2:06 AM, Gray said:

Probably something irrelevant to this discussion.

IOW, you wouldn't like it.

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

IOW, you wouldn't like it.

Hmm, saying "snarky" and "polemical" seems to work like an incantation.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Hmm, saying "snarky" and "polemical" seems to work like an incantation.

Oh, so when you dismissed a major LDS scholar as "irrelevant," you were merely being "snarky" and "polemical," were you?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Oh, so when you dismissed a major LDS scholar as "irrelevant," you were merely being "snarky" and "polemical," were you?

No I was saying Nibly might contribute a snarky and polemical (and therefore irrelevant) response to the theory (read on through the thread). Saying those words seems to have summoned you, like chanting bloody Mary into a mirror.

Look, I'll do what I did with your last account and put you on ignore. That will save time for both of us. I'm sure you'll be able to pick fights with many other posters. Best of luck. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Gray

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No I was saying Nibly might contribute a snarky and polemical (and therefore irrelevant) response to the theory (read on through the thread). Saying those words seems to have summoned you, like chanting bloody Mary into a mirror.

Look, I'll do what I did with your last account and put you on ignore. That will save time for both of us. I'm sure you'll be able to pick fights with many other posters. Best of luck. 

1. I didn't see your subsequent comments, so your "incantation" wasn't what did it.

2. I'm not surprised that you want to accuse Nibley of being "snarky and polemical." That is, after all, a pretty standard view in your community.

Edited October 19, 2017 by kiwi57

[mfbukowski]

Bump

Don it would be great to hear your comments!

Mark

[clarkgoble]

Sorry -- somehow had missed this message.

On 10/19/2017 at 2:15 PM, CV75 said:

Confess that I first only read the Conclusion of the paper, but upon reading more of it more closely to better understand your quote from it, can see that she drew parallels (perhaps not in the same way) with the brother of Jared as I did (and I drew other scriptural parallels as well). So it seems the thought experiment at least drew out similar observations and interpretations.

Yes, but I don't think the brother of Jared works because he just comes up with the idea of God lighting stones. It's much more technological using God's power. It's not the stones as an image of some pre-existing simulacrum. Now a case could be made that the stones of the brother of Jared and the Interpreters are the same thing and draw out from that. But the narrative doesn't really do what she wants it to do. You need the image before the object for all these things to work. Yet that's precisely what she hasn't established anywhere.

Now we have to distinguish the position from the arguments made for it. So somewhat like Lance Owens Kabbalah paper, there is perhaps a way to do what she wants using masonry where things are a bit more symbolic and non-present. You could also perhaps make a case from the quasi-magical use of the Art of Memory in the Renaissance. The problem there is that there's no evidence Joseph was exposed to any of that except very indirectly through masonry. But most of the interesting parallels  you have to go back to the renaissance for or to the speculative publishing period of masonry. However that's all long before Joseph or after Nauvoo. I'm not saying there might not be a way to do it. Heaven knows I don't know all the texts from that era. But to be plausible she has to find those texts.

On 10/19/2017 at 2:15 PM, CV75 said:

Mid-way through the paper she does refer to the plates as a "believed-in simulation" which to me says they evoked a virtual reality experience where the witnesses collectively saw what Joseph saw to their and Joseph's mutual satisfaction.

Right. That's the model. What she hasn't done is present why we should think the model applies since all the evidence suggests that it was either seen as physical or astral. Not this astral not physical but in need of being made physical. The problem is she wants Joseph to be sincere in this. Indeed that's her whole motivation. But to really make that work she has to have some evidence for his motivation otherwise it just is better interpreted as fraud. That the brother of Jared is the best example she can find shows she really doesn't have much by way of evidence. Instead it's much more "here as way, with no evidence, to read the text that avoids the fraud/faith dichotomy." Again I completely understand why it's attractive to some - especially in academic Mormon Studies. I just don't think there's really any reason to say it's how Joseph thought about it.

Edited October 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Sorry -- somehow had missed this message.

Yes, but I don't think the brother of Jared works because he just comes up with the idea of God lighting stones. It's much more technological using God's power. It's not the stones as an image of some pre-existing simulacrum. Now a case could be made that the stones of the brother of Jared and the Interpreters are the same thing and draw out from that. But the narrative doesn't really do what she wants it to do. You need the image before the object for all these things to work. Yet that's precisely what she hasn't established anywhere.

Now we have to distinguish the position from the arguments made for it. So somewhat like Lance Owens Kabbalah paper, there is perhaps a way to do what she wants using masonry where things are a bit more symbolic and non-present. You could also perhaps make a case from the quasi-magical use of the Art of Memory in the Renaissance. The problem there is that there's no evidence Joseph was exposed to any of that except very indirectly through masonry. But most of the interesting parallels  you have to go back to the renaissance for or to the speculative publishing period of masonry. However that's all long before Joseph or after Nauvoo. I'm not saying there might not be a way to do it. Heaven knows I don't know all the texts from that era. But to be plausible she has to find those texts.

Right. That's the model. What she hasn't done is present why we should think the model applies since all the evidence suggests that it was either seen as physical or astral. Not this astral not physical but in need of being made physical. The problem is she wants Joseph to be sincere in this. Indeed that's her whole motivation. But to really make that work she has to have some evidence for his motivation otherwise it just is better interpreted as fraud. That the brother of Jared is the best example she can find shows she really doesn't have much by way of evidence. Instead it's much more "here as way, with no evidence, to read the text that avoids the fraud/faith dichotomy." Again I completely understand why it's attractive to some - especially in academic Mormon Studies. I just don't think there's really any reason to say it's how Joseph thought about it.

Well, there is the Masonic legend of Enoch where he sees a gold plate (or 2 in an underground chamber with the metal sphere that acts as an oracle and the egyptian writing and I forget what other fun parellels) in vision and is commanded to make it (I believe he makes everything else too). This vision has been shown to have influenced early Mormonism, in the very least in how the story of the Book of Mormon being discovered is told, if not other aspects.

 

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, there is the Masonic legend of Enoch where he sees a gold plate (or 2 in an underground chamber with the metal sphere that acts as an oracle and the egyptian writing and I forget what other fun parellels) in vision and is commanded to make it (I believe he makes everything else too). This vision has been shown to have influenced early Mormonism, in the very least in how the story of the Book of Mormon being discovered is told, if not other aspects.

I believe that is a fairly late tradition. I'm trying to find the earliest account and the best I can find is 1831 with Avery Allyn’s A Ritual of Freemasonry. (Page 155 -- although it varies from later versions of the legend you've probably encountered - no gold plate in this version) Also note that the gold plate (singular) in the later tradition only contains the name of God and then gems. (The gems were what was common in all the versions I found - not the gold plate)  Here's the Mackey version which gives the much later (post BoM) development (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry 1873)

Quote

 

Enoch, being inspired by the Most High, and in obedience to a vision, constructed underground, in the bosom of Mount Moriah, an edifice consisting of nine brick vaults situated perpendicularly beneath each other and communicating by apertures left in the arch of each vault.

He then caused a triangular plate of gold to be made, each side of which was a cubit long; he enriched it with the most precious stones and engraved upon it the ineffable name of God. He then encrusted the plate upon a stone of agate of the same form, which he placed upon a cubical stone of marble, and deposited the whole within the ninth or innermost vault.

When this subterranean building was completed, Enoch made a slab or door of stone, and, attaching to it a ring of iron, by which it might, if necessary, be raised, he placed it over the aperture of the uppermost arch, and so covered it overwith soil that the opening could not easily be discovered. Enoch himself was not permitted to enter it more than once a year, and on his death or translation all knowledge of this building and of the sacred treasure which it contained was lost until in succeeding ages it was accidentally discovered while Solomon was engaged in building, a temple above the spot, on the same mountain.

 

This is pretty different. It's true he's building based upon a vision but it's more analogous to Joseph Smith seeing the vision of the Nauvoo temple and being particular about it's architecture because of that. It again isn't mimicking an astral object with a physical one but a command to do something. Now that is a parallel since clearly this object of Enoch is tied to the temple. 

The full account (I only quoted a bit) seems heavily influenced by the renaissance Art of Memory. It's more a system of objects used to represent traditions for Masonry. The emphasis is on the pillars and the vault and not the plate. The vault tradition is of course much older than the Enoch tradition going back at least to the beginning of the 18th century and possibly to the beginnings of speculative masonry a century earlier. In turn masonry almost certainly got it from memory palaces for the Art of Memory but also various other texts with such vaults. The idea of the pillars, which are key to the Enochian legend are also pretty old and pop up in lots of places. (All played up in the mid 19th century onward in speculative masonic ideas about their origins) Josephus has one version of this talking of two pillars that survive the flood. (Antiquities, 1.2:3)

Without going down a tangent of the old traditions (Enochian and non-Enochian) that masonry likely got the ideas from, the key is that the writing was on the pillars not the plates. Further Enoch wasn't making a copy of a heavenly object ala theurgical platonism but just following a command to build a temple like object on the site of Solomon's Temple.

Now again, I think the Art of Memory and somewhat vaguely related theurgical platonic traditions is the place to look. But you have to find texts from before 1830. Again I'm hardly a masonic scholar. So I make no claims that there aren't earlier texts that do give the same legend as later masonic traditions. However the burden is on those making the argument to find the texts. I'd be happy to be shown wrong here.

Edited October 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe that is a fairly late tradition. I'm trying to find the earliest account and the best I can find is 1831 with Avery Allyn’s A Ritual of Freemasonry. (Page 155 -- although it varies from later versions of the legend you've probably encountered - no gold plate in this version) Also note that the gold plate (singular) in the later tradition only contains the name of God and then gems. (The gems were what was common in all the versions I found - not the gold plate)  Here's the Mackey version which gives the much later (post BoM) development (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry 1873)

This is pretty different. It's true he's building based upon a vision but it's more analogous to Joseph Smith seeing the vision of the Nauvoo temple and being particular about it's architecture because of that. It again isn't mimicking an astral object with a physical one but a command to do something. Now that is a parallel since clearly this object of Enoch is tied to the temple. 

The full account (I only quoted a bit) seems heavily influenced by the renaissance Art of Memory. It's more a system of objects used to represent traditions for Masonry. The emphasis is on the pillars and the vault and not the plate. The vault tradition is of course much older than the Enoch tradition going back at least to the beginning of the 18th century and possibly to the beginnings of speculative masonry a century earlier. In turn masonry almost certainly got it from memory palaces for the Art of Memory but also various other texts with such vaults. The idea of the pillars, which are key to the Enochian legend are also pretty old and pop up in lots of places. (All played up in the mid 19th century onward in speculative masonic ideas about their origins) Josephus has one version of this talking of two pillars that survive the flood. (Antiquities, 1.2:3)

Without going down a tangent of the old traditions (Enochian and non-Enochian) that masonry likely got the ideas from, the key is that the writing was on the pillars not the plates. Further Enoch wasn't making a copy of a heavenly object ala theurgical platonism but just following a command to build a temple like object on the site of Solomon's Temple.

Now again, I think the Art of Memory and somewhat vaguely related theurgical platonic traditions is the place to look. But you have to find texts from before 1830. Again I'm hardly a masonic scholar. So I make no claims that there aren't earlier texts that do give the same legend as later masonic traditions. However the burden is on those making the argument to find the texts. I'd be happy to be shown wrong here.

Clark, the Masonic legend was formed before JS and was available to him in text: 

"The Masonic Enoch tradition contains many similarities to the Enoch pseudepigrapha and other ancient counterparts. The following material is drawn from Webb’s highly influential monitor of early American Masonic ritual, a source accessible to Joseph Smith (244-47). As in the other accounts, Enoch is a righteous man, who lives “in the fear and love of his Maker.” As part of his devotion, he studies the seven liberal arts and sciences, with special attention to astronomy.17 In the Masonic telling of the Enoch story, humanity is elevated by the sciences. In Enoch’s case, his studies have had such a life-altering effect upon him that God promises him a special revelation. According to his desire, the Name of God will be revealed to him. He is transported to the top of a mountain, where God appears in a vision. The characters of the Divine Name are given upon a triangular plate of gold and thus restored to humankind. Enoch is then called to preach to the degenerate inhabitants of the world who will soon be destroyed in a great flood which he has foreseen."

From Cheryl Bruno - http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2014/2014-35.pdf

Edited October 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe that is a fairly late tradition. I'm trying to find the earliest account and the best I can find is 1831 with Avery Allyn’s A Ritual of Freemasonry. (Page 155 -- although it varies from later versions of the legend you've probably encountered - no gold plate in this version) Also note that the gold plate (singular) in the later tradition only contains the name of God and then gems. (The gems were what was common in all the versions I found - not the gold plate)  Here's the Mackey version which gives the much later (post BoM) development (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry 1873)

This is pretty different. It's true he's building based upon a vision but it's more analogous to Joseph Smith seeing the vision of the Nauvoo temple and being particular about it's architecture because of that. It again isn't mimicking an astral object with a physical one but a command to do something. Now that is a parallel since clearly this object of Enoch is tied to the temple. 

The full account (I only quoted a bit) seems heavily influenced by the renaissance Art of Memory. It's more a system of objects used to represent traditions for Masonry. The emphasis is on the pillars and the vault and not the plate. The vault tradition is of course much older than the Enoch tradition going back at least to the beginning of the 18th century and possibly to the beginnings of speculative masonry a century earlier. In turn masonry almost certainly got it from memory palaces for the Art of Memory but also various other texts with such vaults. The idea of the pillars, which are key to the Enochian legend are also pretty old and pop up in lots of places. (All played up in the mid 19th century onward in speculative masonic ideas about their origins) Josephus has one version of this talking of two pillars that survive the flood. (Antiquities, 1.2:3)

Without going down a tangent of the old traditions (Enochian and non-Enochian) that masonry likely got the ideas from, the key is that the writing was on the pillars not the plates. Further Enoch wasn't making a copy of a heavenly object ala theurgical platonism but just following a command to build a temple like object on the site of Solomon's Temple.

Now again, I think the Art of Memory and somewhat vaguely related theurgical platonic traditions is the place to look. But you have to find texts from before 1830. Again I'm hardly a masonic scholar. So I make no claims that there aren't earlier texts that do give the same legend as later masonic traditions. However the burden is on those making the argument to find the texts. I'd be happy to be shown wrong here.

Not only is it in print in the correct time period, but as I often bring up both JS dad and brother Hyrum we're Freemasons and may have shared it with him. Also, the discussion surrounding the anti-Masonic movement could have lent the knowledge as well.

All the versions Ive read have Enoch seeing the plate in vision and then being commanded to make it. While the visionary plate is not a representation of some other legitimate object, the simple vision -> construction concept could easily have inspired JS. 

Yes, I'm aware of the differences between the legend and the BOM's discovery narrative an s content. While they clearly rule out blatant plagiarism, they certainly don't rule out JS finding inspiration in the legend.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, there is the Masonic legend of Enoch where he sees a gold plate (or 2 in an underground chamber with the metal sphere that acts as an oracle and the egyptian writing and I forget what other fun parellels) in vision and is commanded to make it (I believe he makes everything else too). This vision has been shown to have influenced early Mormonism, in the very least in how the story of the Book of Mormon being discovered is told, if not other aspects.

I think "shown" is claiming a bit more than the evidence justifies. I believe that some have tried to argue such an influence, but I don't think it has actually been "shown."

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I think "shown" is claiming a bit more than the evidence justifies. I believe that some have tried to argue such an influence, but I don't think it has actually been "shown."

There certainly is room for debate, but the evidence is somewhat strong that the legend at least affected how people told the story. The stone lid is described as having arches on its underside in one account. Another account has the plates and other artifacts atop pillars. More tangential to the Enochian legend but explicitly Masonic, the plates have the square and compass on the cover in another account.

Here are the lecture notes from a presentation on the topic by scholar Cheryl Bruno that I believe covers everything I just mentioned.

http://www.academia.edu/14586250/The_Book_of_the_Law_Masonic_Usages_in_the_Story_of_the_Coming_Forth_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

[hope_for_things]

On 10/19/2017 at 12:16 PM, mfbukowski said:

Think about it.  Sectarian Christianity believes the gospel is Absolute and Unchangeable and yes, the central plan of salvation is like that.  So they believe that revelation is "once, forever" meaning that all we need for salvation is revealed in the bible- and we need no "new Bible".

IF that is true, why do we need prophets??   If our truth and practices never change- there is no need for prophets.

Yet the church teaches that we need prophets because our needs change, and God reveals new "truth" to help us- the Proclamation is a perfect, perfect example.

So how can Mormons therefore believe in eternal unchanging truth?   Usually the explanation shuffles around making meaningless distinctions, yet the LDS scriptures are quite clear that truth is "what is sweet to us" and can be revealed to each individual to provide for their needs.  D&C 93 says that truth exists in "spheres" or contexts and guess what- so does Wittgenstein and yes even Rorty.

Some testify that they have done the Moroni test and gotten a different answer and the usual answer apologists give,  since we believe supposedly in unchangeable truth,  is that they must have done it wrong.  Only we could possibly be right.

Yet they also affirm that God can give us revelation according to our needs- but apparently that only applies for those who agree with us.  But converts can get the Holy Ghost to find the church- but if they find another church it must not have been the Holy Ghost.   It is a mass of confusion

My answer is that sometimes we need perhaps a preparatory gospel message and grow into a better understanding of Christ- but that view is not possible for the absolutists.

So if we have prophets "truth" as taught by God to his children must change and not be "absolute"

Times change and we might need a new "Proclamation" as our needs and God's direction for us changes.   But Mormons still want their eternal unchangeable truth without noticing that these two needs are incompatible.

Either truth changes and we need prophets or truth does not change and we do not need prophets.   Take your pick- you can't have both!

The answer of course is a pragmatic approach- which is found perfectly stated in Alma 32- truth is what is sweet to our spirits and that which grows in our hearts.

That is an organic, evolutionary version of truth plan and simple.  Unchangeable truth does not "grow" in your heart- it is once and forever.

But do we see truth and changeable and organic and what grows in our hearts?   Of course not!   We are bogged in Neoplatonism and scientism and call organic growing truth "relativism".

You can't win for losing!

 

Got busy last week, but wanted to respond.  I think the theology of continuing revelation is a key Mormon teaching and should give our tradition the humility necessary to recognize that nothing is set in stone and we should continue to be open to new insight, new revelation from God, and that we should expect it to come from unexpected places.  The problem I have with Mormon culture is that we've turned the idea of modern revelation into an idol worship of church leaders and authority figures. 

Rather than being one of the first organizations to embrace truths revealed, Mormons are often late to the party because the entrenched structure of 15 white western raised old men needing consensus on ideas, which entrenches the church into an extremely conservative approach to change which is quite different than the Joseph Smith executive rule Mormonism.  Now, I think there are pros and cons to both systems, but I would like something more democratic and embracing of the common consent principle which while articulated by Joseph, in practice it wasn't administered this way very consistently.  

I think truth that you're describing being relative (existing in spheres), must also be pared with this idea that truth is broadly defined, and open to new interpretation.  The quote from Joseph you could use to support this is about teaching people true principles and letting them govern themselves.  This is the kind of truth we need to teach and practice.  Its a truth of ideas, a truth of principles.  Love, honesty, charity, selflessness, forgiveness, etc.  These are concepts that all have unique circumstances and individual exceptions based on those circumstances.  But they are truths and they are timeless I believe, but they are also limited and should never be worshiped as idols.  Truth principles can be turned into idols when people take any of them to an extreme.  

 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Clark, the Masonic legend was formed before JS and was available to him in text: 

"The Masonic Enoch tradition contains many similarities to the Enoch pseudepigrapha and other ancient counterparts. The following material is drawn from Webb’s highly influential monitor of early American Masonic ritual, a source accessible to Joseph Smith (244-47). As in the other accounts, Enoch is a righteous man, who lives “in the fear and love of his Maker.” As part of his devotion, he studies the seven liberal arts and sciences, with special attention to astronomy.17 In the Masonic telling of the Enoch story, humanity is elevated by the sciences. In Enoch’s case, his studies have had such a life-altering effect upon him that God promises him a special revelation. According to his desire, the Name of God will be revealed to him. He is transported to the top of a mountain, where God appears in a vision. The characters of the Divine Name are given upon a triangular plate of gold and thus restored to humankind. Enoch is then called to preach to the degenerate inhabitants of the world who will soon be destroyed in a great flood which he has foreseen."

From Cheryl Bruno - http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2014/2014-35.pdf

I find the masonic lore parallels with Mormonism quite interesting.  Thanks for sharing.  Any extensive books written on this in Mormon studies that you're aware of?  I would love to read more about these things, I've read just enough to wet my appetite and I think there are avenues to explore out there that haven't been yet.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I find the masonic lore parallels with Mormonism quite interesting.  Thanks for sharing.  Any extensive books written on this in Mormon studies that you're aware of?  I would love to read more about these things, I've read just enough to wet my appetite and I think there are avenues to explore out there that haven't been yet.  

I ended up digging in a lot of sources to get at the topic, and I didn't find any book length treatments... Let me know if you find something. There's a lot of uncovered territory still there I think.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I ended up digging in a lot of sources to get at the topic, and I didn't find any book length treatments... Let me know if you find something. There's a lot of uncovered territory still there I think.

There's was an interesting series of podcast episodes on Mormon Expression a few years back where they interviewed an unknown guest going under the pseudonym of George Miller on the Masonry topic.  Definitely some speculation and I don't consider this rigorous, but 6 episodes discussing Masonry and connections with Mormonism I found it really interesting if you haven't listened before.  

http://mormonexpression.com/?p=5076

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There's was an interesting series of podcast episodes on Mormon Expression a few years back where they interviewed an unknown guest going under the pseudonym of George Miller on the Masonry topic.  Definitely some speculation and I don't consider this rigorous, but 6 episodes discussing Masonry and connections with Mormonism I found it really interesting if you haven't listened before.  

http://mormonexpression.com/?p=5076

 

I haven't heard these, and they just got bumped to the top of my list. Thanks!

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Not only is it in print in the correct time period, but as I often bring up both JS dad and brother Hyrum we're Freemasons and may have shared it with him. Also, the discussion surrounding the anti-Masonic movement could have lent the knowledge as well.

All the versions Ive read have Enoch seeing the plate in vision and then being commanded to make it. While the visionary plate is not a representation of some other legitimate object, the simple vision -> construction concept could easily have inspired JS. 

Yes, I'm aware of the differences between the legend and the BOM's discovery narrative an s content. While they clearly rule out blatant plagiarism, they certainly don't rule out JS finding inspiration in the legend.

Again, the version in print is quite different from the later version that mentions the plate with the name of God. The common tradition is much more about creating the chambers and pillars. Of course Enoch learning the name of God is an old tradition going back to Merkabah traditions. While 1 Enoch likely wasn't available to Joseph, the tradition of Enoch and the name of God was in Kabbalism. I'd have to check to see what renaissance traditions it was in. The key point though is that in the 13th degree of the extended Scottish Rite the plate part doesn't appear to be in the American versions Joseph would have been exposed to.

Cheryl Bruno's article likewise can't find any early texts. Thus she's reduced to speculating that the discovery of 1 Enoch was communicated to American masons and thus to Joseph Smith despite there being no evidence for this. Again, go a few years later and there is evidence. The question is the timing.

You should also note the recent discussion at FPR on the availability of the text of Enoch to Joseph. The 1828 printing never happened. While it's possible the more limited European printing of 1821 was available to either Joseph or the masons, the key question was whether it had already led to the revision of the Scottish rite. So far as I'm aware there's no evidence it had by 1830 although again I'm open to being shown wrong. Bruno's paper just doesn't establish that this revised Scottish rite was available to Joseph. More significantly it doesn't address the masonic legend as being available. 

It's interesting that she writes the following.

Quote

They wasted no time incorporating these ancient Enoch materials into their legends and ritual. The information demonstrably entered Freemasonry by the time of Smith. Masonic writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century were men of letters. They were clerics and antiquarians; they studied Latin and ancient languages.12 They wrote and lectured on the convergence of science, religion, mysticism, and the historical past. These writings and a thorough education in Masonic legend were available to Smith, his family members, and associates through Masonic authors Thomas Webb, George Oliver, and others.

Surprisingly she gives no reference for it having "demonstrably entered Freemasonry by the time of Smith." There's a vague reference to Webb and Olvier but not explicit reference we can check. (Footnote 12 merely talks about masons who knew language, not an early source for the modified Scottish rite)

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, the version in print is quite different from the later version that mentions the plate with the name of God. The common tradition is much more about creating the chambers and pillars. Of course Enoch learning the name of God is an old tradition going back to Merkabah traditions. While 1 Enoch likely wasn't available to Joseph, the tradition of Enoch and the name of God was in Kabbalism. I'd have to check to see what renaissance traditions it was in. The key point though is that in the 13th degree of the extended Scottish Rite the plate part doesn't appear to be in the American versions Joseph would have been exposed to.

Cheryl Bruno's article likewise can't find any early texts. Thus she's reduced to speculating that the discovery of 1 Enoch was communicated to American masons and thus to Joseph Smith despite there being no evidence for this. Again, go a few years later and there is evidence. The question is the timing.

You should also note the recent discussion at FPR on the availability of the text of Enoch to Joseph. The 1828 printing never happened. While it's possible the more limited European printing of 1821 was available to either Joseph or the masons, the key question was whether it had already led to the revision of the Scottish rite. So far as I'm aware there's no evidence it had by 1830 although again I'm open to being shown wrong. Bruno's paper just doesn't establish that this revised Scottish rite was available to Joseph. More significantly it doesn't address the masonic legend as being available. 

It's interesting that she writes the following.

Surprisingly she gives no reference for it having "demonstrably entered Freemasonry by the time of Smith." There's a vague reference to Webb and Olvier but not explicit reference we can check. (Footnote 12 merely talks about masons who knew language, not an early source for the modified Scottish rite)

 

I'm not sure why she didn't specify the source in her footnotes, but in the text I quoted she cited Webb's Monitor. Here is an 1818 version of the monitor that does talk about Enoch making a gold triangular plate: https://books.google.com/books?id=rDAiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=thomas+webb+monitor+enoch&source=bl&ots=DLtjeDrL0V&sig=BBbm6cGZYBseMe4-GLfJo6tkwTU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLk-zFnofXAhUN8GMKHSlaA34Q6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=thomas webb monitor enoch&f=false

Edited October 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker