Bill Hamblin and his "Focussed Discussion"

[_George Miller]

Got a dozen viruses after googling sod of Jehovah. Crap. By the way I fail to understand why Mormons want to ignore the obvious that Joseph Smith got the Endowment Revelation spun off from masonic rites. Why is that a problem? Like nobody can write an inspired symphony because there already exists an earlier symphony, so the second symphony must be a phony and cannot be inspired? What the heck?

Nightlion, for what it's worth my own research clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith borrowed from Freemasonry; and IMHO what he created was a beautiful and elegant ritual which shows he was a brilliant and skilled ritualist. I would even call what he produced inspired. That being said, authorial intent is to me what is important. If you ignore the Masonic underpinnings of the endowment, you also miss much of the meaning that Joseph laced throughout the ceremony. That is why, at least to me, it is important.

[_Kishkumen]

By the way I fail to understand why Mormons want to ignore the obvious that Joseph Smith got the Endowment Revelation spun off from masonic rites. Why is that a problem? Like nobody can write an inspired symphony because there already exists an earlier symphony, so the second symphony must be a phony and cannot be inspired? What the heck?

It is an excellent question, Nightlion. I don't understand it myself. Evidently the mechanical means by which truth is restored is as or more important than the fact that it is, at least in the minds of some. But, I am with you. I don't see the issue here.

Well, I do see that critics are more likely to dismiss the endowment for this reason. But, as you would likely agree, they will dismiss it in any case. And just because critics dismiss it for this reason does not mean that believers have to validate that dismissal by insisting on some inscrutable process by which the endowment was transmitted to the prophet.

[_Kishkumen]

While there are elements in Joseph Smith's theology that are compatible with ancient beliefs in a divine council, the LDS endowment as it exists today doesn't actually portray that divine council. It does take one up to the precipice of this conceptually, but it, so to speak, leaves the initiate hanging. In other words Hamblin's argument doesn't really address the critics' argument.

George, sometimes you really spook me out. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I wrote my last post. This is why I made a point about theosis and ascension not being identical in all texts, rituals, and time horizons. You are exactly right. Although the endowment explicitly refers to theosis, it does little to portray the divine council. I mean, I can see ways of identifying it there, but certainly it is not something I would naturally think of as a result of experiencing the ritual as it is practiced today.

[_George Miller]

While there are elements in Joseph Smith's theology that are compatible with ancient beliefs in a divine council, the LDS endowment as it exists today doesn't actually portray that divine council. It does take one up to the precipice of this conceptually, but it, so to speak, leaves the initiate hanging. In other words Hamblin's argument doesn't really address the critics' argument.

George, sometimes you really spook me out. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I wrote my last post. This is why I made a point about theosis and ascension not being identical in all texts, rituals, and time horizons. You are exactly right. Although the endowment explicitly refers to theosis, it does little to portray the divine council. I mean, I can see ways of identifying it there, but certainly it is not something I would naturally think of as a result of experiencing the ritual as it is practiced today.

Great minds think alike. And mediocre minds like mine sometimes get lucky. Of course the fact that we both came to the same conclusions roughly independently suggests that there is an actual problem with Hamblin argument.

[_George Miller]

It is an excellent question, Nightlion. I don't understand it myself. Evidently the mechanical means by which truth is restored is as or more important than the fact that it is, at least in the minds of some. But, I am with you. I don't see the issue here.

Well, I do see that critics are more likely to dismiss the endowment for this reason. But, as you would likely agree, they will dismiss it in any case. And just because critics dismiss it for this reason does not mean that believers have to validate that dismissal by insisting on some inscrutable process by which the endowment was transmitted to the prophet.

Amen!!!! To quote another poster here, I like the jib of your sails.

[_Kishkumen]

Great minds think alike. And mediocre minds like mine sometimes get lucky. Of course the fact that we both came to the same conclusions roughly independently suggests that there is an actual problem with Hamblin argument.

Oh, you are too modest. In any case, I think there are a number of problems not only with Hamblin's argument, but the overall approach to Joseph Smith's revelatory process that leads to such arguments.

[_George Miller]

Great minds think alike. And mediocre minds like mine sometimes get lucky. Of course the fact that we both came to the same conclusions roughly independently suggests that there is an actual problem with Hamblin argument.

Oh, you are too modest. In any case, I think there are a number of problems not only with Hamblin's argument, but the overall approach to Joseph Smith's revelatory process that leads to such arguments.

I would agree with you here 100%. The picture that most Mormons have of Joseph Smith's revelatory process is a misinformed caricature of Joseph Smith's actual process. As such,IMHO too many Mormons are thus left to believe that Joseph and his successor prophets' revelatory experiences are inaccessible, or at least grander, than they themselves could ever hope to experience. As such too many Mormons both misunderstand and miss out on the chance to experience God, speak with him face to face and experience the whole breadth of spiritual manifestation open to the human mind, from the subtle to the grand.

All the while Hamblin and others want Joseph Smith's revelation to restore ancient customs and practices. Then the modern Saints look at their own revelations and instead see how their Deity touched mind assembles fact and information from their contemporary environment. Expecting the distorted picture they have been presented with, they have no other choice but to assume their own lessons from heaven are inferior.

At the same time it sets them up for expectations from the process of revelation that lead too many out the door of not only Mormonism, but spirituality as well. At the same time the complete reliance on revelation as 100% true is also equally problematic. I keep a mental tickler file of devastating stories of Saints who have followed the promptings of the spirit only to find themselves in a morass of problems that could have been remedied by making sure the heart and the head were both in agreement. Skepticism of revelation is actually one of the long overlooked themes of Joseph Smith that I don't think I have seen anybody document. [Please forgive the diatribe - stepping off my soap box now]

[_Kishkumen]

[As such too many Mormons, IMHO, are thus left to believe that Joseph and his successor prophets revelatory experiences are inaccessible, or at least grander, than they themselves could ever hope to experience. As such too many Mormons both misunderstand and miss out on the chance to experience God, speak with him face to face and experience the whole breadth of spiritual manifestation open to the human mind. At the same time it sets them up for expectations from the process of revelation that lead too many out the door of not only Mormonism, but spirituality as well.

Yes. This kind of distancing is a very common phenomenon in religion. Another great example is the tendency in Buddhism to make the Buddha experience as conceptually inaccessible as possible, leading to the notion that enlightenment only comes to a few monks at the end of a lifetime of struggle. Then there will come the backlash movements that rekindle the spark for more people. Mormonism represents this kind of backlash in some respects, in that it reopened the canon for revelations of a living prophet. The problem is that this spark and the need for organizational stability are often in conflict. So, in the LDS Church today you find a cadre of well-intentioned CEO types to whom the general membership look as being a potential Joseph Smith but for the right divine command to set him in motion, all the while ignoring their own spiritual development as something that is restricted to regurgitating Correlated pablum on Sunday--and this is not to blame the LDS Church as being solely responsible for that.

At the same time the complete reliance on revelation as 100% true is also equally problematic. I keep a mental tickler file of devastating stories of Saints who have followed the promptings of the spirit only to find themselves in a morass of problems that could have been remedied by making sure the heart and the head were both in agreement. Skepticism of revelation is actually one of the long overlooked themes of Joseph Smith that I don't think I have seen anybody document.

And this unbalanced/distorted view of Smith and revelation has robbed Mormons of the method that accompanied the mantic. Freemasonry was a well-developed system of thought and ritual as supported by an effective structure. By looking at Joseph as some kind of uncultivated ignoramus operating in isolation of the influence of such traditions, it only encourages others who are similarly bereft of any real knowledge or facility to think they can just set off on their own too. And, worse yet, Smith's tradition withers for lack of understanding, to be replaced by corporatism. The rediscovery of Masonic roots could bring about a renaissance of Mormon spirituality.

[_George Miller]

And this unbalanced/distorted view of Smith and revelation has robbed Mormons of the method that accompanied the mantic. Freemasonry was a well-developed system of thought and ritual as supported by an effective structure. By looking at Joseph as some kind of uncultivated ignoramus operating in isolation of the influence of such traditions, it only encourages others who are similarly bereft of any real knowledge or facility to think they can just set off on their own too. And, worse yet, Smith's tradition withers for lack of understanding, to be replaced by corporatism. The rediscovery of Masonic roots could bring about a renaissance of Mormon spirituality.

IMHO Such a rediscovery and renaissance would be wonderful.

[_Blixa]

I would agree with you here 100%. The picture that most Mormons have of Joseph Smith's revelatory process is a misinformed caricature of Joseph Smith's actual process. As such,IMHO too many Mormons are thus left to believe that Joseph and his successor prophets' revelatory experiences are inaccessible, or at least grander, than they themselves could ever hope to experience. As such too many Mormons both misunderstand and miss out on the chance to experience God, speak with him face to face and experience the whole breadth of spiritual manifestation open to the human mind, from the subtle to the grand.

All the while Hamblin and others want Joseph Smith's revelation to restore ancient customs and practices. Then the modern Saints look at their own revelations and instead see how their Deity touched mind assembles fact and information from their contemporary environment. Expecting the distorted picture they have been presented with, they have no other choice but to assume their own lessons from heaven are inferior.

Speaking of spooky.

My own humble area of Mormon studies concerns the early Utah period. But this last year, as I have been tracing out several threads back to earlier times, I've been reading more on Joseph Smith and church origins. What you have laid out here, George, is something that has been coalescing in my own mind. The difference between say, the Kirtland experience, and the notion that spiritual experiences are about "warn[ing] you about traffic jams, or the spider in your shoe..." (a quote from a sincere believer at MDD), is staggering. And more than a little tragic.