Bill Hamblin and his "Focussed Discussion"

[_Kishkumen]

Hamblin's tact here is interesting though and a bit novel when he invokes the סוד (sod) of יהוה as his example of a biblical endowment. From what he has posted so far, I am completely unconvinced that he has made his case. It seems to me that he is stretching the meaning of this phrase far beyond what it really means to push this into a celestial ascent motif.

So you don't think that extra-canonical accounts of the ascent of the patriarch to the heavens to the throne of God have any relationship with entering into the council of the gods? You don't see any connection there?

[_Buffalo]

Asking an apologist difficult questions = harassment. What a world view. No wonder so many evangelicals call Mormonism a cult.

[_sock puppet]

Hey Bill,

Come on in and answer the question. Or simply say "I don't know." By stating "I don't know" you might gain some respect. In my line of work you either know or you don't. When one does not know then they state this clearly and might even reply with: "let me get back to you," instead of taking one's ball, calling the police, locking yourself and the ball in a panic room, and yelling insults at people outside the panic room instead of facing the actual issue.

The MAD board has turned into revenge of the nerds when they finally gained control of the campus.

Bill doesn't want scholarly respect as much as he wants the Brethren's respect.

[_sock puppet]

The thread is open again, and all but one of my posts are deleted.

Purged now of Mike Reed's 'harrassment'.

[_George Miller]

Hamblin's tact here is interesting though and a bit novel when he invokes the סוד (sod) of יהוה as his example of a biblical endowment. From what he has posted so far, I am completely unconvinced that he has made his case. It seems to me that he is stretching the meaning of this phrase far beyond what it really means to push this into a celestial ascent motif.

So you don't think that extra-canonical accounts of the ascent of the patriarch to the heavens to the throne of God have any relationship with entering into the council of the gods? You don't see any connection there?

No I think the sod of jehovah is speaking of the shem ha foresh or the ineffable pronunciation of God's name. That this was thought by the Jews to be conveyed in the throne room of God during an heavenly ascent is accurate. However, Hamblin is conflating the sod of Jehovah with the heavenly council itself. It is in this interpretation that I think he is stretching.

I would, however, point out that the heavenly ascent motif is in Freemasonry and the Masonic parallels are MUCH stronger than those presented here by Hamblin. I have beef with anyone who tries to talk about the subject without first discussing the contemporary genetic Masonic connections that influenced Joseph Smith.

[Guest]

No I think the sod of jehovah is speaking of the shem ha foresh or the ineffable pronunciation. That this was thought by the Jews to happen in throne room of God during an heavenly ascent is accurate. However, Hamblin is claiming that the sod of Jehovah is the heavenly council itself. It is in this interpretation that I think he is stretching.

So your disagreement would be more aimed at his insistence on a certain theological view that binds the sod of jehovah and the temple endowment in his mind. Personally, I don't see the point in stretching to make that connection. The connection between ascent and theosis isn't necessarily equally strong or important in every context. There is a lot of room for differences in the various texts, rituals, and time horizons. It is the assumption that there exists a Platonic Form of all of this that is defined by Hamblin's reading of Mormonism and that provides the standard by which all other versions are to be judged and interpreted that bothers me.

I would, however, point out that the heavenly ascent motif is in Freemasonry and the parallels there are MUCH stronger than those presented here by Hamblin. I have beef with anyone who tries to skip the genetic Masonic connection.

This, in my view, is Hamblin holding onto old assumptions about what is truly miraculous in the endowment. For these guys, it seems to be God's intervention in presenting the past to others through Smith in the most astounding and unbelievable way that counts. Personally, I don't see the necessity in that view. The endowment isn't magically (excuse the pun) validated because Hamblin believes that it is right there in the Old Testament if we just read it in the right way (which is, of course, read it through the Mormon endowment).

The irony, of course, is that the Mormon reading is influenced so heavily by Freemasonry. So, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, the Freemasonry is right there. They are merely choosing to ignore it so as to hold on to their traditional sense of what constitutes the miracle of it all. And, what that traditional sense requires is that the endowment be grounded somehow in the ancient, pre-LDS canon in a way that can only point, in their view, forward to Mormonism.

[_Morley]

Asking an apologist difficult questions = harassment. What a world view. No wonder so many evangelicals call Mormonism a cult.

Buffalo, you're suggesting just one of a long list. I'm guessing that these are some of the other apologetic rules:

Asking difficult questions is harassment.

Citing the words of church leaders is quote mining.

Posing moral questions about past figures is presentism.

Arguing against a doctrine demonstrates an ignorance of the true core doctrine.

Discussing scientific paradigms is proof that one does not really understand ‘true’ science.

Delving into the specifics of early church history is stark anti-Mormonism.

[_jon]

Thinking for yourself is tantamount to Satanism...

[Guest]

I would, however, point out that the heavenly ascent motif is in Freemasonry and the parallels there are MUCH stronger than those presented here by Hamblin. I have beef with anyone who tries to skip the genetic Masonic connection.

This, in my view, is Hamblin holding onto old assumptions about what is truly miraculous in the endowment. For these guys, it seems to be God's intervention in presenting the past to others through Smith in the most astounding and unbelievable way that counts. Personally, I don't see the necessity in that view. The endowment isn't magically (excuse the pun) validated because Hamblin believes that it is right there in the Old Testament if we just read it in the right way (which is, of course, read it through the Mormon endowment).

I actually have to back off my argument to a small degree. סוד can in fact have the meaning of council, therefore Hamblin's interpretation is more valid than I first thought. That being said, Mormon scholars have continually looked back in time to the largely extra-canonical works for theophanies and celestial ascent motifs. However, I think in doing this they read into Joseph Smith's text interpretations which do not match authorial intent.Therefore, I think, at least in part, that they are misinterpreting their text by placing it in an ancient context. As a scholar who favors the approach of new historicism, I take issue with this approach.

On the other hand, looking at sources contemporary with Joseph Smith, especially Freemasonry, to understand Joseph Smith's conception of these theophanies, renders a much clearer view of these texts which more likely represents authorial intent. I would even argue that the explanatory power of this approach is much more powerful.

[_Runtu]

I had one memorable encounter with Hamblin a couple of years ago. He started a thread insisting that unless critics came up with a detailed theory of exactly how Joseph Smith perpetrated the fraud of the Book of Mormon, they had no grounds to doubt Joseph's story. I posted that this was a ridiculous idea in that the testimony of different witnesses and the timelines are all over the map. It's enough for me that the end product, the Book of Mormon, has serious problems that mark it as not being an ancient record; that is compelling evidence that there probably weren't angels and divine translation.

Hamblin got more than a bit huffy and said that I obviously wasn't a serious person because I would not go along with his silly challenge. I've noticed that Bill tends to set up these silly threads and then refuses to discuss the possibility that his approach might not be a good one. Witness Mike's encounter with him.

He may be a lovely man with a good family, but I'm not impressed with his apologetics.