The White Stone and the Temple

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Alaris said:

The sixth level aligns to the priests to which we are anointed who are the seraphim of Isaiah 6. In this chapter Isaiah participates in an ordinance that basically says welcome to the level where you will have eyes to see and ears to hear whereas the souls over which you preside will be blind deaf and dumb until the Lord returns. 

In Matthew 13, the Lord Jesus Christ cites Isaiah 6 and tells His apostles they have ears to hear, confirming they are of this level. 

I discovered recently the third token pertains to the Holy Ghost. The fact that the sign of the dove is present here and this level of "seeing" may be represented here by a wedjat eye / eye of horus which points to the pineal gland... The gland in the brain attributed to the third eye or visions... These are all amazing confirmations to me. 

This image to me is someone aligned to the second token in their eternal journey which is aligned to the law of the gospel... So basically Ephraim. Our temple ceremony is tailored to souls of this level of progression. And here is the holy ghost preparing them for that next sign, token, and covenant. These are confirmations upon confirmations of deep, beautiful, eternal truth. 

The holy ghost, imho, is the angel who stopped Elkenah, who stayed Isaac's sacrifice, and is the executor of the Abrahamic covenant. He is on multiple facsimiles as he appears as the angel who saves Abraham from Elkenah and is represented by a bird as well, though he may be a Falcon in that one.

And of course many world religions use a white bird to illustrate messengers of God, and one can see why.

Coming of age in the Sixties, I am often reminded of the words of "Cat Stevens" (Yusuf Islam- his new/old name  )

Quote

Oh very young what will you leave us this time
There'll never be a better chance to change your mind
And if you want this world to see a better day
Will you carry the words of love with you
Will you ride the great white bird into heaven
And though you want to last forever
You know you never will
(You know you never will)
And the goodbye makes the journey harder still

https://www.google.com/search?q=cat+stevens+white+bird&rlz=1CADEAF_enUS825US825&oq=cat+stevens+white+bird&aqs=chrome..69i57.18235j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I am privileged to live in an area of the country where egrets are plentiful, and I often ride my bike along a river where they are VERY plentiful, and I cannot help thinking of this imagery every time I see one in flight or taking off.

And of course they are plentiful as well in Egypt, and for my money they are much more beautiful than the ibis, with it's ungainly beak. 

But you see one of these guys take off- and I often think that I could not imagine a better representation for a heavenly messenger !!  They are majestic with their 5 or so foot wingspan, huge, powerful, and yet unbelievably graceful.   When flying at speed, they fold their "S" shaped neck so that it almost disappears for maximum streamlining and speed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=egret+flying+image&rlz=1CADEAF_enUS825US825&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=WnC18aC7U4sdsM%3A%2C9zLuYS0-lkmjJM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kT-3VbLv8sKN04qoTh_rdo3ThcvcA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbvrv2xPzeAhVRKH0KHVZeDaAQ9QEwAHoECAAQBA#imgrc=Cp3VH5o7ajgugM:

 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html

With all due apologies to Scott, that's a pretty problematic creative "fixing" of the hypocephalus. The problem is, as critics are fond of pointing out, that what's sticking out from the sitting figure isn't a hand but something a bit lower down on the anatomy. I know seeing that in terms of the temple is popular - people were saying it back when I was young - but that's just really, really not what the figure is. And Scott's really filled in figure 7 in a fashion quite unlike what is even in Fac. 2.

Now one might argue that Joseph, who knew no Egyptian, saw the figure in terms of the masonic elements he knew. (This was before the restoration of the endowment) However without going into details that's not in masonry and is one of the differences from masonry (either regular or Royal Arch). 

I recognize you're arguing that they were symbols taken at "face value" to teach Joseph, but I confess I'm a bit dubious on this one. Even as a catalyst for revelation unrelated to its literal meaning I don't think you get what goes on in the temple.

7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I can see this, since James and John seem to sorta disappear from the endowment after a certain point. It’s curious to note (and I could be wrong) that Joseph did not originally include Peter, James, and John in his version. 

To be honest I’ve heard this in a couple of publications but I can’t find the source for where they got their info.

I believe they were added by Brigham Young according to the Clayton diary of Dec 13, 1845. Edit: I see you later mention Kimball, but I suspect you're referring to this same journal which was kept by Clayton for Kimball.

I'm not sure why those three were picked. Presumably because they restored the priesthood to Joseph. Of course it makes zero sense they'd be dealing with things "historically" presented so Young was probably just using them to represent angelic messengers symbolically. Their identity doesn't matter. But scripturally three messengers are common. You have three messengers and possibly angels who promise Sarah she'll have a child. (Gen 18:1) There's variants of this in various pseudopigrapha or midrash. So sometimes the messengers aren't to tell Sarah about the child but are relating other things to Abraham. There's three angels in Rev 14 followed by more (I believe 7 total).

I suspect though even the number three is arbitrary and it was expanded to three to match the restoration of the priesthood. It's not clear how it was in the original ceremony but I suspect it was one of the divine figures communicating the knowledge.

On 11/28/2018 at 9:43 PM, SettingDogStar said:

Im curious if anyone can point to a blog, a quote from Joseph, or personal insight that can connect the White Stone to any section of the temple ritual. The Stone, of course, has the New Name written on it and that is a Key-Word, per Joseph’s sayings in section 130.

Just to expand on my earlier comments, the stone clearly has a connection to seer stones and the Liahona. Thus Joseph's comments, the notes from which were put as D&C 130. One of the big catalysts for the endowment wasn't just masory (where there's actually less than most people assume - primarily handshakes) but Royal Arch masonry. That was a kind of "expansion" to masonry that Joseph likely had been exposed to. Royal Arch masonry was prominent in certain restoration of the Jews movements in New York prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon. 

While most of the signs and so forth of the royal arch aren't in the endowment, the set up of the temple with three veils is. What is common is the presentation of a keystone which is symbolic of the original stone from Hiram Abiff, the mythical originator of Masonry. In context there's a bit of a drama of finding the ruins of an ancient temple. The keystone of an arch is the stone (thus royal arch masonry). They then find sacred jewels and finally the ark of the covenant in which is a pot of manna. They then reference Rev 2:17. After the manna they find the rod/staff of Aaron. Finally there's a key with the four ineffable characters which are written in a masonic cypher. They decipher the name and it's the name of the Logos. 

As I said the signs and so forth of this rite aren't really relevant. The finding of these sacred items are and are symbolically presented in our endowment.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

With all due apologies to Scott, that's a pretty problematic creative "fixing" of the hypocephalus.

Do you mean hyper-phallus? 

Edited November 30, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

With all due apologies to Scott, that's a pretty problematic creative "fixing" of the hypocephalus. The problem is, as critics are fond of pointing out, that what's sticking out from the sitting figure isn't a hand but something a bit lower down on the anatomy. I know seeing that in terms of the temple is popular - people were saying it back when I was young - but that's just really, really not what the figure is. And Scott's really filled in figure 7 in a fashion quite unlike what is even in Fac. 2.

Now one might argue that Joseph, who knew no Egyptian, saw the figure in terms of the masonic elements he knew. (This was before the restoration of the endowment) However without going into details that's not in masonry and is one of the differences from masonry (either regular or Royal Arch). 

I recognize you're arguing that they were symbols taken at "face value" to teach Joseph, but I confess I'm a bit dubious on this one. Even as a catalyst for revelation unrelated to its literal meaning I don't think you get what goes on in the temple.

So my revelation is wrong right?

And you know the "real" truth, right?  

Wow.

The whole point is that it is NOT literal in any way- especially not seeing that figure as an Egyptian god- and yes I understand that literal meaning which of course I avoided as being ..... fundamentalistic... but I guess that is always our beef with each other isn't it? 

I will leave it to the reader to decide if we should take this facsimile as an error of translation or a revelation from God saying exactly what the inspired description says it is. LDS dot org says this- which is scriptural

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

Quote

Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

OR on the other hand we can go with the critics and you who say

Quote

The problem is, as critics are fond of pointing out, that what's sticking out from the sitting figure isn't a hand but something a bit lower down on the anatomy.

I think I will "stick" with the scriptures on this one, thank you, even though YOU KNOW "what's happening in the temple" and I do not.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you mean hyper-phallus? 

Cute!

That's fundamentalism for you!!  

Even though it is a clear example of a straightforward spiritual reading of an image which is NOT masonic, and evidence of revelation rather than translation- which I see as a good thing.

The first time I saw those facsimilies I said to myself "Well he could be "translating" the patterns on the wallpaper for all I care!"

A prophet who used a seer-stone doing a literal translation?   But now here this is suddenly literal Egyptian theology?  Prophets through the ages have used visual devices to help them create patterns seen in visions- you have readers of tea leaves, people who watch the waves on the ocean, people who stare into fires, or see pictures in the clouds.   All these release the creative mind to create patterns out of matter unorganized from which they intuit their "revelations" but not here- now suddenly the prophet with the seer stone is supposedly translating literal Egyptian.  Something a little fishy  going on here!!

But I suppose we could go with seeing through the lens of Egyptian Fundamentalism instead of seeing through the lens of the alleged prophet, Joseph Smith

I mean what the heck did he know about the "TRUE" and literal gospel anyway??   Just wow.

Time to take a break.

Edited November 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I will leave it to the reader to decide if we should take this facsimile as an error of translation or a revelation from God saying exactly what the inspired description says it is. LDS dot org says this- which is scriptural

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

OR on the other hand we can go with the critics and you who say

Kind of a false dichotomy isn't it? Surely we don't have to choose only between Scott's creative rendering or the critics pointing to the phallus in order to understand the explanation given for figure 7.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you mean hyper-phallus? 

I would say the opposite - a certain emasculation.

Edited November 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I would say the opposite - a certain emasculation.

In context it makes sense:

Quote

With all due apologies to Scott, that's a pretty problematic creative "fixing" of the hypocephalus hyper-phallus.

In other words, the hyper-phallus got "fixed" (ouch!) by Scott.  

[clarkgoble]

Someone asked by PM about what I was talking about with the orbs. Scott's photoshopping of the image makes it more like what we do. Typically those looking at ANE parallels to the endowment note it's similarity to coronation and being set apart as priests rituals. Sticking with kingship common items are tokens of ones place as King (or Queen). They typically are an orb, a sword or rod, a ring, a scepter or staff, and a crown. Certain monarchies might vary this somewhat. Here for example are the tokens of the British monarchy.

Here's the leige holding the sacred ball.

You find the same sorts of things throughout Europe but more importantly in the ANE.

In Europe the traditional meaning of the orb is to represent the whole earth which is held in the hand of a ruler. The cross is typically added to represent Christ's dominion over the earth. Sometimes the orb is held by an angel. When the cross is part of the orb it's called a globus cruciger. Which sounds impressive until you realize it's just latin for orb with cross. It pops up in art a lot, especially in the Renaissance, where often Jesus holds the orb. The European history unsurprisingly goes back to Rome where Jupiter held the orb. Constantine then copies the image only with him holding the orb. Once Constantine does it then everyone starts doing it after him. The coin below has Jupiter holding not just the orb but also a sacred staff or scepter.

Romans being Romans often when a deity is holding the world in their hand the goddess of victory (Nika) is standing on top. 

Augustus Caesar did the same thing. The second image is Flavius Honorius Augustus, one of the last of the emperors, also with Nika on the orb.

 

Interestingly D&C 130 ties planet and orb as Urim and Thummim together. The planet God lives on is an U&T. Our U&T or white stone allows "things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms" to be made known. Symbolically it's an image of this higher sphere. (Unlike Rome or Europe where it's an image of our earth) In ancient art sometimes the orb represented not the earth, but the sun. At other times it's not an orb but a vase with a spherical base or even a cup out of which waters of life flow. However some figures also hold an orb representing the sun. Of course famously Nut held a sun disk in her hand in Egyptian art. However go farther north east and you see the same sorts of things in Mesopotamia. Here's Marduk with an orb representing the sun and a staff/scepter.

Going back to the Renaissance period, the spheres that were held like this were frequently glass. Here's one of Jesus holding a glass sphere for instance.

Edited November 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mormonfool]

On 11/29/2018 at 8:25 AM, SettingDogStar said:

This right here, do you know the source the author uses for this information? Or is it taking context for section 130?

I think section 130:4-11 is the key source for any analysis. I feel inadequate to summarize all the book's reasoning and sources which include other scripture passages, early Mormon statements, and appendices including one just for commentary on Rev 2:17. The book does lack much discussion of Egypytological connections like the Stone of Truth found in Hugh Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (pages 189-202) or a strand of Maori lore and ritual (Louis Midgley has introduced some key points, but there is much more to explore.)

Of course, what Joseph Smith's Seer Stones does say is more important that what it doesn't. 

Quote

Critical to Joseph’s transformative revelatory impulse was his use of seer stones. As Tucker suggested, Joseph Smith planted his seer stone like a seed, which grew to become the immovable oak of Mormonism. His seerstone allowed him to initially reap new scripture and eventually harvest a deep theological tradition. Though the seer stone may have been dismissed once it formed into the oak, Joseph consciously crafted Mormon theology with seer stones in mind. As he elaborated upon his doctrines of the eternities during his final years in Nauvoo, he explicitly endowed upon the seer stones a cosmological value and an eternal purpose. They became the epistemology of exaltation in the eternities. (JSSS p. 2-3)

The authors most directly argue for this thesis in the concluding chapter "A Theology of Seer Stones"
 

Quote

 

Seer stones were the window that seers peered through to see the mysteries
of God. Through the seer stones, Ammon explained, “a seer can know of

things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them
shall all things be revealed or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest,
and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known
shall be made known” (Mosiah 8:17). Seer stones apparently allowed
prophets to glimpse the recesses of past, present, and future and understand
the expanse of God’s cosmology. In the brother of Jared’s case, he saw
“all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be;
and [God] withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the
earth. . . . The Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew
that the Lord could show him all things” (Ether 3:25–26). A key to accessing
a knowledge of “all things” was the seer stones prepared by the Lord.
By 1843, Joseph Smith explained to the Twelve Apostles that seer
stones and the ability to use them was not limited strictly to prophets. He
displayed his seer stone for all of the Twelve to see, declaring “every man
who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone.”[19] This was only after
he had recently placed the concept of seer stones into a much larger, far
more cosmological context than he had before. He declared, “The place
where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim” (D&C 130:8). Those
who belong to that place, which was “like a sea of glass and fire” could
see “all things” past, present, and future. Interestingly, he explained that
our earth would eventually be transformed into a similar kind of place:
“In its sanctified and immortal state; . . . [it will] be made like unto crystal
and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon”
(D&C 130:9). People who populate that earth could “see all things” pertaining
to “inferior” or “kingdoms of a lower order.” Temporality and spatiality
will be unlimited for all who live upon these earths. Just as Ammon
spoke of Mosiah II, those who live on these earths will “see all things.” Furthermore,
like God’s immortal earth that exists in a higher order, this earth
will eventually be made immortal and “will be Christ’s” (D&C 130:9).
Describing a cosmological divine governance, Joseph Smith also
revealed how individuals would know of the higher orders of immortal
earths. He stated that each white stone would become a “Urim and
Thummim, . . . whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms
will be made known” (D&C 130:9). Joseph Smith gave this explanation with
reference to John the Revelator’s statement: “To him that overcometh will I

give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the
stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth
it” (Revelation 2:17). Apparently, the bestowal of a white stone was not only
a designation for those entering the celestial kingdom, but also allowed
them to transcend the orders of immortal earths to see all things.
Abraham’s experience with seer stones demonstrates the potential of
such a God-like gift here on earth. He wrote, “I saw the stars . . . and that
one of them was nearest unto the throne of God.” Through his seer stones,
the Lord showed him “the governing” stars, and one of the greatest stars he
saw was “Kolob.” The Lord explained that Kolob was the star set “to govern
all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest”
(Abraham 3:3). He then was shown the reckoning of time and the relationship
of each of the stars to each other, describing a hierarchy of stars “one
above the other” (Abraham 3:16–17). The promise Joseph Smith made to
the Twelve Apostles was that they too could see what Abraham had seen,
possibly similar to what Joseph Smith saw in Doctrine and Covenants 76,[20]
but that “they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness.”[21]

 

 

[SettingDogStar]

21 hours ago, Alaris said:

The sixth level aligns to the priests to which we are anointed who are the seraphim of Isaiah 6. In this chapter Isaiah participates in an ordinance that basically says welcome to the level where you will have eyes to see and ears to hear whereas the souls over which you preside will be blind deaf and dumb until the Lord returns. 

In Matthew 13, the Lord Jesus Christ cites Isaiah 6 and tells His apostles they have ears to hear, confirming they are of this level. 

I discovered recently the third token pertains to the Holy Ghost. The fact that the sign of the dove is present here and this level of "seeing" may be represented here by a wedjat eye / eye of horus which points to the pineal gland... The gland in the brain attributed to the third eye or visions... These are all amazing confirmations to me. 

This image to me is someone aligned to the second token in their eternal journey which is aligned to the law of the gospel... So basically Ephraim. Our temple ceremony is tailored to souls of this level of progression. And here is the holy ghost preparing them for that next sign, token, and covenant. These are confirmations upon confirmations of deep, beautiful, eternal truth. 

The holy ghost, imho, is the angel who stopped Elkenah, who stayed Isaac's sacrifice, and is the executor of the Abrahamic covenant. He is on multiple facsimiles as he appears as the angel who saves Abraham from Elkenah and is represented by a bird as well, though he may be a Falcon in that one.

I found this quote (I had never seen this before) and I thought I might be relevant considering Joseph said he learned this Name from the Urim Thummim, and has strong connections to the Temple.

 

[Joseph Smith, the Prophet was] conversing with Dr. J. 
Wakefield and others . . . spoke concerning key words. The g[rand] key word was the  first word Adam spoke and is a word of supplication. He found the word by the Urim and 
Thummim. It is that key word to which the heavens is opened. [Journal of William 
Clayton under above date.]

So it would seem that Stones have a strong reference to revelation (obviously), and are integral to the Temple Ordinances. However we don’t have them mentioned at all during the current rituals, and they might have never been added during Joseph’s time. 

It just seems to me like a very important (but maybe not) concept that either was never expounded on, or was never meant to be expounded on. 

[mormonfool]

Some other sources that have been published in The Interpreter.

Bradshaw and Bowen "“By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified”

Quote

A poem by W. W. Phelps asserts that “efore this world was known,” he was “wash’d and set apart For the glory yet to be.” He also wrote that they were also given a “white stone” with a “new name,” and that they were to receive these things again when they returned to their heavenly home (Deseret News, 6, 416, cited in ibid., pp. 299–300 endnote 4-9)."

Stan Spencer "Seers and Stones"

Quote

Clayton reported that Joseph Smith was “conversing with Dr. J. Wakefield and others … spoke concerning key words. The g[rand] key word was the first word Adam spoke and is a word of supplication. He found the word by the Urim and Thummim. It is that key word to which the heavens is opened.” William Clayton journal, 15 June 1844, quoted in William V. Smith, A Joseph Smith Commentary on the Book of Abraham: An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Abraham, 3rd ed. (Provo, UT: Book of Abraham Project, 2009), 163.

 

[Alaris]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Someone asked by PM about what I was talking about with the orbs. Scott's photoshopping of the image makes it more like what we do. Typically those looking at ANE parallels to the endowment note it's similarity to coronation and being set apart as priests rituals. Sticking with kingship common items are tokens of ones place as King (or Queen). They typically are an orb, a sword or rod, a ring, a scepter or staff, and a crown. Certain monarchies might vary this somewhat. Here for example are the tokens of the British monarchy.

 

Truly appreciate the images and exposition. I've trimmed them out to save page real estate. This is where my mind went after seeing all those royalty images.

I do believe there is a strong spiritual symbol to the sword. Jesus tells His apostles to bear swords yet they never really use them that we know of. The sword is mentioned many, many times in conjunction to the Word of the Lord in the D&C  - to the dividing asunder of joints, marrow, and spirit.

D&C 33:1 Behold, I say unto you, my servants Ezra and Northrop, open ye your ears and hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, whose word is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, soul and spirit; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I believe the "word" is a reference to the Holy Spirit / Angel of the Lord. Jesus cites exactly one scripture the night He goes into Gethsemane from Zechariah:

Zechariah 13:7 ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Again, I believe "the sword" is a reference to the Spirit of God. I wrote about this here:

https://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2018/09/awake-o-sword-holy-ghosts-participation.html

There's another aspect to this thread I have found, super interesting - but I'll add that into my response to the OP.

[Alaris]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I found this quote (I had never seen this before) and I thought I might be relevant considering Joseph said he learned this Name from the Urim Thummim, and has strong connections to the Temple.

 

[Joseph Smith, the Prophet was] conversing with Dr. J. 
Wakefield and others . . . spoke concerning key words. The g[rand] key word was the  first word Adam spoke and is a word of supplication. He found the word by the Urim and 
Thummim. It is that key word to which the heavens is opened. [Journal of William 
Clayton under above date.]

So it would seem that Stones have a strong reference to revelation (obviously), and are integral to the Temple Ordinances. However we don’t have them mentioned at all during the current rituals, and they might have never been added during Joseph’s time. 

It just seems to me like a very important (but maybe not) concept that either was never expounded on, or was never meant to be expounded on. 

That is extremely interesting! 

As for  names, I realized something while studying Scott Woodward's article on Facsimile 2. Here is the text for Facsimile 2, figure 1 from Joseph Smith:

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

I always read this definition to mean "Jah-oh-eh" signifies one day in Kolob. From the article:

http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html

Quote

In his explanation of figure 1, Joseph Smith says that the earth is called Jah-oh-eh by the Egyptians. In the Times and Seasons he defined Jah-oh-eh as “O the Earth.” This would be reasonable rendering of the Egyptian i ae.t, “O Earth” (assuming that Joseph used the biblical convention of rendering a Semitic Yod with an english J).

Jah-oh-eh means "Earth!?" Or "Oh the Earth?"  This is extremely interesting to me - allow me to explain.

Jah-o-el is the name of the Angel of the Lord who appears to Abraham in the Apocalypse of Abraham. 

This name "Jahoel" was confirmed to me powerfully by the Spirit as the Holy Ghost / Davidic Servant. I couldn't find much on the name until I thought to good alt spellings months after the experience. That's when I discovered this is the angel of the Apocalypse of Abraham:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_of_Abraham.html

Recently, someone posted a link to the Joseph Smith papers page that shows Joseph Smith's notes on these words from Facsimile 2.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/grammar-and-alphabet-of-the-egyptian-language-circa-july-circa-november-1835/94

There is more detail on there from the name Jah-oh-xxx, which I will get into in a moment.

I believe Jahoel is the priest sitting on the throne of Zechariah - that he is the fulfilment of Yom Kippur - the one to whom the High Priest of Aaron points - the one who is ultimately wearing the golden crown, "Holiness to the Lord."

Zechariah 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord:

13 Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

This is a priest becoming a king. This is what we are anointed to become in the holy temple!

The high priest holds the rod of Aaron in one hand. Does he hold the incense in the other?

I write about the angel of Jahoel here and his connection to the High Priest / Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament, etc.

http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-name-of-angel-of-lord.html

Circling back to the name Jahoel. From the Joseph Smith Papers article I cited:

Jah=ho=e=oop; An ambassador: one delgated with Kingly power; one authorized to ex[e]cute judgement for the King; a swift messenger one whose power cannot be escaped; one next to supreme;
Jah-ni hah: one delegated from the highest sons [?] acting in or b[e]ing clothed with the power of an other; one from sent from the Celestial Kingdom
Jah-oh-eh The earth under the governing <powers> of oliblish, Enish go on dosh, and Kae-e van rash, which are the grand governing key or in other words, the governing power, which governs the fifteen fixed stars <(twelve [2 words illegible])> that belong governs the earth, sun, & moon, (which have their power <in> one,) with the other twelve moving planets of this system. Oliblish=Enish go on dosh, and Kaii , en rash, are the three grand central stars which powers that govern all the other creations, which have been sought out by the most aged of all the fathers, since the begining of the creation, by means of the urim and Thummim: The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob, Limdi, Ziss, Vurel, Venisti, Waine, Wagah=ox=oan, oansli, Keble Shineflis, flis, ots. The Egyptian names, of the fifteen moving planets are: Oan isis, Flos-isis, flo’ese: Abbesele, Ele ash, Sabble, Slundlo, ear roam, Crash ma kraw, obbles isim, Izinsbah. missel

What amazing "coincidences" these are. Jahoel - Jahoeoop - Jahoeh - and the defintion of Jahoeoop sounds very much like my understanding of who the Angel of the Lord / Holy Ghost is, what his authority and and how he is becoming a King by exercising the authority of a King, tasting of the powers of the world to come.

Edit: I almost forgot to circle all the way back to "Jah-oh-eh" - The Earth. This is the dominion of authority that has been delegated to the Jah-oh-eh-oop. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Alaris

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Kind of a false dichotomy isn't it? Surely we don't have to choose only between Scott's creative rendering or the critics pointing to the phallus in order to understand the explanation given for figure 7.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I actually said, I never said there were only two choices, just that yours relied on critics instead of canonized scripture which is directly on point.

Also, I had the same interpretation Scott did long before I saw his website, but disagree with his comments on other portions of the facsimile. He simply had a drawing that portrayed the image the same way I did.

And actually you were the one who said that there is a wrong interpretation, and that I was lucky guy who had it,  and implied that you had the one true interpretation. After all if I don't know 'what's happening in the temple" then you must. By all means please tell us what the correct interpretation is.

But surely we don't have to choose between your "creative rendering" or mine.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Alaris said:

That is extremely interesting! 

As for  names, I realized something while studying Scott Woodward's article on Facsimile 2. Here is the text for Facsimile 2, figure 1 from Joseph Smith:

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

I always read this definition to mean "Jah-oh-eh" signifies one day in Kolob. From the article:

http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html

Jah-oh-eh means "Earth!?" Or "Oh the Earth?"  This is extremely interesting to me - allow me to explain.

Jah-o-el is the name of the Angel of the Lord who appears to Abraham in the Apocalypse of Abraham. 

This name "Jahoel" was confirmed to me powerfully by the Spirit as the Holy Ghost / Davidic Servant. I couldn't find much on the name until I thought to good alt spellings months after the experience. That's when I discovered this is the angel of the Apocalypse of Abraham:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_of_Abraham.html

Recently, someone posted a link to the Joseph Smith papers page that shows Joseph Smith's notes on these words from Facsimile 2.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/grammar-and-alphabet-of-the-egyptian-language-circa-july-circa-november-1835/94

There is more detail on there from the name Jah-oh-xxx, which I will get into in a moment.

I believe Jahoel is the priest sitting on the throne of Zechariah - that he is the fulfilment of Yom Kippur - the one to whom the High Priest of Aaron points - the one who is ultimately wearing the golden crown, "Holiness to the Lord."

Zechariah 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord:

13 Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

This is a priest becoming a king. This is what we are anointed to become in the holy temple!

The high priest holds the rod of Aaron in one hand. Does he hold the incense in the other?

I write about the angel of Jahoel here and his connection to the High Priest / Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament, etc.

http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-name-of-angel-of-lord.html

Circling back to the name Jahoel. From the Joseph Smith Papers article I cited:

Jah=ho=e=oop; An ambassador: one delgated with Kingly power; one authorized to ex[e]cute judgement for the King; a swift messenger one whose power cannot be escaped; one next to supreme;
Jah-ni hah: one delegated from the highest sons [?] acting in or b[e]ing clothed with the power of an other; one from sent from the Celestial Kingdom
Jah-oh-eh The earth under the governing <powers> of oliblish, Enish go on dosh, and Kae-e van rash, which are the grand governing key or in other words, the governing power, which governs the fifteen fixed stars <(twelve [2 words illegible])> that belong governs the earth, sun, & moon, (which have their power <in> one,) with the other twelve moving planets of this system. Oliblish=Enish go on dosh, and Kaii , en rash, are the three grand central stars which powers that govern all the other creations, which have been sought out by the most aged of all the fathers, since the begining of the creation, by means of the urim and Thummim: The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob, Limdi, Ziss, Vurel, Venisti, Waine, Wagah=ox=oan, oansli, Keble Shineflis, flis, ots. The Egyptian names, of the fifteen moving planets are: Oan isis, Flos-isis, flo’ese: Abbesele, Ele ash, Sabble, Slundlo, ear roam, Crash ma kraw, obbles isim, Izinsbah. missel

What amazing "coincidences" these are. Jahoel - Jahoeoop - Jahoeh - and the defintion of Jahoeoop sounds very much like my understanding of who the Angel of the Lord / Holy Ghost is, what his authority and and how he is becoming a King by exercising the authority of a King, tasting of the powers of the world to come.

Edit: I almost forgot to circle all the way back to "Jah-oh-eh" - The Earth. This is the dominion of authority that has been delegated to the Jah-oh-eh-oop. 

Why do you dabble in heresy? Do you fancy yourself the BRANCH?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your comment has nothing to do with what I actually said, I never said there were only two choices, just that yours relied on critics instead of canonized scripture which is directly on point.

Critic or canonized scripture is two choices and I'm saying that's a false choice. I rely on both and other things as well. Further it's not just critics who point out the nature of figure 7. Pretty much everyone agrees upon that. Go read Gee or Rhodes and they say the same thing.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Also, I had the same interpretation Scott did long before I saw his website, but disagree with his comments on other portions of the facsimile. He simply had a drawing that portrayed the image the same way I did.

And actually you were the one who said that there is a wrong interpretation, and that I was lucky guy who had it,  and implied that you had the one true interpretation. After all if I don't know 'what's happening in the temple" then you must. By all means please tell us what the correct interpretation is.

The issue isn't the temple but the underlying text in question. If you see the papyri just as a catalyst and in no sense a translation then that's fine. It is then a creative appropriation on par with seeing clouds as objects. Again that's fine if that's your view of what Joseph was doing. It's not clear to me it is your view but it's definitely not my view. My view is that if the comments on fig 7 are revealed then we have to understand them relative to the text in question. (And there are multiple views on the matter including whether the vignettes and hypocephalus count as canon as opposed to the text of Abraham - I think they do but not everyone agrees) There are middle grounds I've argued for before. My own view is a bit more agnostic and I'm not entirely sure we should assume the commentary is inspired despite being in the PoGP. But I'm also convinced it's tied to revelation in some sense. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/29/2018 at 6:14 AM, Durangout said:

In certain ancient societies, an election process occured to admit a new member into that society.  The person that was allowd into that society was given a white stone signifing that they had been “elected” to become a member of said group.  Thise who were not approved to koin were given a black stone.

many are called to become one of God’s family but few are choosen.

 In the election of a new pope, white smoke from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel means a new pope has been elected. Black smoke means one has not. 

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 In the election of a new pope, white smoke from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel means a new pope has been elected. Black smoke means one has not. 

I have been thinking about you on this thread- I know you have objected in the past to threads you cannot follow due to your being a non-member.   That is understandable.

How are you doing with this one?

Getting anything out of it at all?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My view is that if the comments on fig 7 are revealed then we have to understand them relative to the text in question. 

That's terribly vague but why would you think that?  

Where is the text of the Book of Mormon?

On that basis you cannot call the BOM "revealed" because it is impossible to "understand it relative to the text".  

So you think that God himself must keep to a man- made text written by Egyptian priests that we should understand them relative to the text?  That God actually wanted us to see the god Min with an erect phallus instead of using the image to illustrate a point to Joseph?  Do you now agree with the points made in the CES letter then?

The idea seems completely incoherent to me, quite frankly.

And if I reserve the right to differ with prophets according to my own testimony- which must be the prime directive of being a convert at all, if the concept is to be logically lucid, why on earth would I listen to some scholar in spiritual matters?

How does Moroni 10 4-5 is to be understood "relative to the text in question ?

How could we possibly know that the text "actually" said that, and therefore that it is inspired because it is "relative to the text in question" when no text exists?

Are converts then deluded who accept the gospel according to the "spirit" because there is no text?

It's ok - you don't have to answer

And incidentally "seeing as" has been studied extensively in philosophy based on work by Bergson, James and of course Wittgenstein.   From that discussion we got the famous "rabbit/duck" illustration.  Understanding these issues philosophically is of prime importance in understanding your assertions here

Here is a summary for the reader from wikipedia- written for the average reader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

Quote

 

Seeing that vs seeing as

In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures that can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something.

An example Wittgenstein uses is the "duckrabbit", an ambiguous image that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.[38] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigationsindicate, Wittgenstein isn't sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an 'internal' cognitive change takes place.

 

Gosh, the cause of the perception stays the same while an internal cognitive change takes place.

Heard that before?   Could maybe that cognitive change be "inspiration"??   

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been thinking about you on this thread- I know you have objected in the past to threads you cannot follow due to your being a non-member.   That is understandable.

How are you doing with this one?

Getting anything out of it at all?

Honestly, not much, because I don't know what goes on in your temples. But I will say that I am intrigued because my religious inclinations have always been towards ritual, because ritual is symbol and symbol expresses the ineffable, which is God. That is why ritual combined with meditation has drawn me so. Week long retreats at monasteries (first Buddhist, then Catholic) have combined the two perfectly for me  

Perhaps a parallel to me would be an LDS member reading about the Tridentine Mass (reading, not attending), and then trying to understand it. Not much would come of that. Even if an LDS member attended a Tridentine Mass, he or she probably wouldn't get much of the symbolism. Religious symbolism is so deep and contextual and requires an immersion in the ideas and beliefs.

But I will say this. Why not allow non-LDS to observe these rituals? The Tridentine Mass, the most symbolic and (in my opinion) sacred of Catholic Liturgy is open for all to observe. Not participate, obviously, but observe. I know there is a history of the Mass of the Catechumens (open to all) and Mass of the Faithful (open to baptized members) but that has been quite some time... do you foresee a time when any can observe an LDS temple rite?

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/29/2018 at 7:39 PM, RevTestament said:

The white stone is revelation which will become scripture, so it is basically impossible to receive it in the temple. 

No it is the ultimate version of the iPhone. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, not much, because I don't know what goes on in your temples. But I will say that I am intrigued because my religious inclinations have always been towards ritual, because ritual is symbol and symbol expresses the ineffable, which is God. That is why ritual combined with meditation has drawn me so. Week long retreats at monasteries (first Buddhist, then Catholic) have combined the two perfectly for me  

Perhaps a parallel to me would be an LDS member reading about the Tridentine Mass (reading, not attending), and then trying to understand it. Not much would come of that. Even if an LDS member attended a Tridentine Mass, he or she probably wouldn't get much of the symbolism. Religious symbolism is so deep and contextual and requires an immersion in the ideas and beliefs.

But I will say this. Why not allow non-LDS to observe these rituals? The Tridentine Mass, the most symbolic and (in my opinion) sacred of Catholic Liturgy is open for all to observe. Not participate, obviously, but observe. I know there is a history of the Mass of the Catechumens (open to all) and Mass of the Faithful (open to baptized members) but that has been quite some time... do you foresee a time when any can observe an LDS temple rite?

Hmmmm- frankly no

Part of the reason is that there are actual "facts" taught (certain things it is believed that one needs to know to enter - not heaven- but the celestial kingdom- which are not to be taught to those unprepared or uninitiated.)  I am not revealing anything I am not supposed to by saying that- Brigham Young explained it this way- 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/come-to-the-temple?lang=eng
 

Quote

 

President Brigham Young (1801–77) said of the endowment: “Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”3

 

So if you read that carefully you will understand that these "key words" we would probably now call "passwords" - which are symbols, some verbally expressed and some physically expressed- not unlike in nature to the Sign of the Cross.

So this is actual knowledge of certain word symbols and various gestures which teach in a cryptic way ideas and facts about the nature of God.  To know them is to make oneself ready for exaltation IF you have proven worthy- you have the necessary knowledge to be exalted and pass the "test"

Of course for us this is symbolic but "passing the sentinels" is a very real belief for most Mormons.

Catholics say and do certain things which mark them as Catholic and if they do not do them, one would not be regarded as "Catholic".  Suppose one regarded themselves as Catholic but did not believe in attending Mass or the sign of the cross, saying the rosary or following the restrictions for feast days.   In addition they just thought the Eucharist was just a piece of bread

Would they "get to heaven" or receive the full blessings of the church if they did not do these things or found them not necessary?

Debatable at least- I am sure.

But in this case there is more- the KNOWLEDGE expressed in performing the ritual is actually believed to - according to Givens and others- cause a physical change in one's spirit when one receives an ordinance.  This is not unlike the "indelible mark" formed on the spirit in Catholic belief, but for us the ordinance is the KNOWLEDGE which leaves the "spiritual mark"

Some members may give me flak for this but Givens speaks of this at some length and I think the analogy works well here.

So to KNOW the symbols- that is to HEAR and SEE them IS RECEIVING the ordinance/sacrament itself,  but without any instruction on what any of it means.   It would be like an Evangelical praying the rosary- what would they get out of it?   What if they took the Eucharist? What if they put on vestments and copied the priest in saying mass?  

  What's wrong with that- shouldn't everyone be included?

There are also portions in which symbolic clothing is put on- not unlike Catholic vestments in some cases.   After all we are all Priests- and so we have vestments too!!

So now imagine someone off the street attending a tridentine mass, putting on vestments, learning how to consecrate the host, learning how to say the rosary, and perform all the ordinances of the Catholic church, taking the Eucharist, and doing all those things while those things were all MEANINGLESS to them and probably more than a little bit funny!! 

I mean look at all the weird stuff those Catholic nuns wear- and the priests?   Why they've got layer upon layer of who knows what- Cassocks and surplices and .... and....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestment#Latin_Catholic,_Anglican,_Lutheran_and_Protestant_vestments

But for us remember putting that stuff on IS THE ORDINANCE.   To do it is to be it!

And there is not an observers section in the back row.... 

Hope that helps a little

It's not the usual explanation which is "BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT WORTHY"- but that is the way I see it

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

No it is the ultimate version of the iPhone. 

Well, Hinckley said the stone is the Church so I guess you better believe that.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's terribly vague but why would you think that?  

Because he presented it as a translation and the explanations on the vignettes and hypocephalus are presented as a translation of the figures and not a reaction to the figures about an unrelated phenomena.

Now one can argue he's wrong of course. Lots of people do that - those who think he's a fraud or those who embrace the catalyst model and think he was just working backwards. But as presented he claims it's a translation. One has to explain that.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where is the text of the Book of Mormon?

The text of the Book of Mormon in the sense of the English text or the "reformed Egyptian" text? Again Joseph clearly presented the former as the translation of the latter. Again lots of people say that's wrong and that it's fiction or fraud. That's fine. I think again one has to explain the plates he had and its relation to the English text we have. That relation clearly affects the meaning of the English text.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you think that God himself must keep to a man- made text written by Egyptian priests that we should understand them relative to the text?  That God actually wanted us to see the god Min with an erect phallus instead of using the image to illustrate a point to Joseph?  Do you now agree with the points made in the CES letter then?

I think if God says there's a relation then yes, we have to understand them relative to that text. If God lies then he's not a particularly trustworthy sort to follow, is he? Why on earth would you believe him?

This is definitely where I think a Jamesian "it works" type model falls down. It matters if an experience I have is actually from God or is just from drugs. It matters if the text I read is fiction or is actually about real people who lived.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How could we possibly know that the text "actually" said that, and therefore that it is inspired because it is "relative to the text in question" when no text exists?

You don't believe there were real Nephite plates?  Clearly we differ then because I think that text does exist.  

Not having the plates and the plates not existing aren't the same. 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Are converts then deluded who accept the gospel according to the "spirit" because there is no text?

If there is no text then they're misled. This seems a trivial point. I'm rather surprised you're taking the track you are.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And incidentally "seeing as" has been studied extensively in philosophy based on work by Bergson, James and of course Wittgenstein.   From that discussion we got the famous "rabbit/duck" illustration.  Understanding these issues philosophically is of prime importance in understanding your assertions here

I confess I'm not following you at all. There's both a rabbit and a duck in that image because someone intentionally drew it so both could justifiably be interpreted in the picture. Intents matter. Relative to fig. 7 it matters what is meant by people. The question is whether Joseph was using it to illustrate something unrelated to those Egyptian drawings or whether he intended to communicate what the meaning of those drawings were in an earlier non-Mormon context. 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Could maybe that cognitive change be "inspiration"??   

Is spiritual inspiration determined by the result or the source? Perhaps that's the big difference between us? The short term interpretations matter, but what I'm after are the origins and the long term interpretations.

Edited December 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because he presented it as a translation and the explanations on the vignettes and hypocephalus are presented as a translation of the figures and not a reaction to the figures about an unrelated phenomena.

Now one can argue he's wrong of course. Lots of people do that - those who think he's a fraud or those who embrace the catalyst model and think he was just working backwards. But as presented he claims it's a translation. One has to explain that.

The text of the Book of Mormon in the sense of the English text or the "reformed Egyptian" text? Again Joseph clearly presented the former as the translation of the latter. Again lots of people say that's wrong and that it's fiction or fraud. That's fine. I think again one has to explain the plates he had and its relation to the English text we have. That relation clearly affects the meaning of the English text.

I think if God says there's a relation then yes, we have to understand them relative to that text. If God lies then he's not a particularly trustworthy sort to follow, is he? Why on earth would you believe him?

This is definitely where I think a Jamesian "it works" type model falls down. It matters if an experience I have is actually from God or is just from drugs. It matters if the text I read is fiction or is actually about real people who lived.

You don't believe there were real Nephite plates?  Clearly we differ then because I think that text does exist.  

Not having the plates and the plates not existing aren't the same. 

If there is no text then they're misled. This seems a trivial point. I'm rather surprised you're taking the track you are.

I confess I'm not following you at all. There's both a rabbit and a duck in that image because someone intentionally drew it so both could justifiably be interpreted in the picture. Intents matter. Relative to fig. 7 it matters what is meant by people. The question is whether Joseph was using it to illustrate something unrelated to those Egyptian drawings or whether he intended to communicate what the meaning of those drawings were in an earlier non-Mormon context. 

Is spiritual inspiration determined by the result or the source? Perhaps that's the big difference between us? The short term interpretations matter, but what I'm after are the origins and the long term interpretations.

I took an entire semester course in the UCLA philosophy department in aesthetic theory and the primary question was whether or not the intentions of the artist "mattered" 

A whole course on artists intentions. Nothing more nothing less.

I am not saying this to hold myself out as an expert, just to make the point that it is a huge question in aesthetic theory.  You don't toss it off with "intentions matter".  If you don't believe me, google "philosophy artists intentions"

This is art. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but the   is art, and Joseph interpreted it as art, and we interpret Joseph as an artist, if we are aware of it or not.

Joseph is Warhol and the papyrus is a soup can.  A reproductive interpretation of the soup can is in the art museum.  What do you make of it?

A hypocephalus ends up in Mormon- very literalist people-  scripture.   What do you make of it?  The analogy is not so far fetched.

This is art at its best- it causes us to wake up the brain and create order from matter unorganized.  It all becomes a performance piece, and God is the greatest Artist.  His goal is to make us think.   This IS all a test you know??    

I am also surprised you do not seem familiar with the catalyst theory nor are you acquainted with the usual arguments about what the word "translate" meant in 1828.  That comes up in every discussion of the BOA- check it out in the 1828 Webster's available online.  You have to be aware of it- but if you are then I cannot figure out why you are tossing these issues out as if they have never been discussed before.

But I suppose that is the crux of our problem- you think reality is something hard and fast- perhaps- I can't figure it out, and i will not say what I think you think because I hate it when you do that to me.

For me all of reality fits the "catalyst theory" about the BOA pretty well.   We see stuff and we interpret the experience and the result of that interaction becomes our "reality".

I cannot possibly comprehend how you more literal thinking Mormons can argue about the word "translation"  of either the BOM or the BOA while we do not have the texts for either one.  Honestly that word just doesn't apply in this context when it is clear that even the dictionary meaning of the word has changed totally from 1828.

And the simpleton idea that that makes it "fiction" or a "fraud" or that God lies??   Give me a break!!!!

All of reality (our stream of consciousness) is a catalyst for what we count as "real" and it is clear that your reality is quite different than mine.  For me everything man made is "art" and subject to interpretation.   I suspect for you, not so much though I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth because I hate it so much myself.

At least perhaps we can agree on the Golden Rule but at this point I am not so sure.  

Quite honestly I am thinking we do not have much more to discuss- we have never understood each other. 

Do intentions matter?

Here is one book on it.   The point is, it is a complex question not to be thrown off with "intentions matter"

I have never gotten into this before- thanks for the opportunity

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199278067.001.0001/acprof-9780199278060

Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study

Paisley Livingston

ABSTRACT

In aesthetics, the topic of intentions comes up most often in the perennial debate between intentionalists and anti-intentionalists over standards of interpretation. The underlying assumptions about the nature and functions of intentions are, however, rarely explicitly developed, even though divergent and at times tendentious premises are often relied upon in this controversy. Livingston provides a survey of contentions about the nature and status of intentions and intentionalist psychology more generally, arguing for an account that recognizes the multiple functions fulfilled by intentions in the lives of temporally situated agents who deliberate over what to do, settle on ends and means, and try to realize some of their plans. Artists’ intentions are the same sorts of attitudes that we attribute to ourselves and to others as we attempt to describe, explain, and predict our actions. As such, intentions are relevant not only to debates over the interpretation of works of art but also to a range of other basic topics in the philosophy of art, including artistic creation and authorship, the ontology of art, the nature of texts, works, versions, and life-works, and the status and nature of fiction and fictional truth. With regard to the controversy over the interpretation of art, Livingston advocates a ‘partial’ intentionalism. Intentions are never infallible, so there is a conceptual gap between the completed work and the intentions that initiated and guided its making. Yet in spite of the fallibility of intentions and of our beliefs and claims about them, intentions regularly contribute to the determination of a work’s features, including implicit meanings, the recognition of which requires the uptake of the artist’s intentional design. Partial intentionalism also finds support in the idea that at least one sort of artistic value depends on the artist’s skilful accomplishment of intentions.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by mfbukowski